OFFICIAL REPORT.



The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Wrexham District Tramways Bill (by Order),

Second Beading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR FUELS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will, at the earliest possible moment, take steps to have the Report of the Profiteering Committee on Petrol and other Motor Fuels brought before the Economic Section of the League of Nations for consideration?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take on the findings of the Petrol Committee?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I do not propose to take the initiative in bringing the Report of the Motor Fuel Sub-Committee to the notice of the Economic Section of the League of Nations. As regards the recommendations relating to power alcohol, I must refer to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Kirk-dale Division on the 4th March. The other recommendations of the Sub-Committee are being carefully examined, but the whole question is surrounded with difficulties—some of which are indicated in the covering letter from the Standing Committee on the Investigation of Prices—and I am not at present prepared to say what action it will be possible to take.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication how it will be possible to bring the whole subject before the Economic Council of the League of Nations?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question has to be settled by a higher authority than myself.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that as the hon. Gentleman is not proposing to bring that matter before the Economic Council he is proposing no other steps in the meantime?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 12 years have elapsed since the Government began to consider this question? Is there any hope that a decision will be reached soon?

Oral Answers to Questions — COKE (SHORTAGE).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the productivity of the iron and steel industries is considerably reduced at the present time owing to a shortage of coke, due in part to reduced output; and whether he cam see his way to temporarily reduce the export of coke, in order that the home market may have better supplies and thus manufacture a greater quantity of finished iron and steel goods for the foreign market?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Since February 21st the export of coke-oven coke from Humber and Mersey ports has been entirely stopped, so that the whole output of coke works in Lancashire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, and other Midland districts is now available for home requirements. No export of Cumberland coke is permitted at present, and practically none of Scotch coke. It is only from Durham and South Wales that restricted: quantities are allowed to be exported. Transport difficulties are such that it is impossible to utilise the whole output of these districts for inland use.

Major BARNES: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if foundry coke is being sent by rail from Cumberland to the Tyne for shipment; whether such shipments have been made in pre-war years,
and, if not, whether such exports of coke are taking the place of exports of coal which have been prohibited by the Coal Controller?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Cumberland coke has been exported from the Tyne, but this export has been prohibited since February 21st. When the coke was exprted it was not taking the place of coal. A certain quantity of such coke was exported from the Tyne, I am informed, in pre-war days.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL (HOME RESOURCES).

Mr. DOYLE: 3
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in developing the oil resources of the country; what has been the average increase of output during the last three months; and if it is contemplated to open up new wells?

The ADDITIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the DEPARTMENT of OVERSEAS TRADE (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): The operations which H. M. Government have been carrying out in Derbyshire and other parts of the United Kingdom have been making progress which has been necessarily slow of late on account of the depth to which the wells have attained. While oil has so far been met with in quantity only in one well, it has been proved that deposits of oil do actually exist, and there is every encouragement to continue the work. There has been no increase in output during the last three months. Further developments cannot be undertaken pending the passage of legislation dealing with the question of oil rights in the country. Licences to bore for petroleum have been granted to two companies.

Mr DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the oil is being obtained in paying quantities?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The exact amount produced from the wells up to the present is 2,300 barrels, which are in storage. The oil is still flowing.

Mr G. LAMBERT: Is the development now being hold up because legislation is required to enable it to be proceeded with?

Sir H GREENWOOD: That is so.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Why is the Department of Overseas Trade responsible for the oil of this country?

Sir H GREENWOOD: The Department of Overseas Trade is not responsible, but I am the Minister for Petroleum Affairs.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. Gentleman do anything to reduce the price of petrol?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

COST AT PIT MOUTH.

Mr. LAMBERT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the average cost of coal at the pit's mouth for the year 1919, showing the amount attributable to labour, materials, and other costs, and owner's profits and royalties, comparing these costs with the year 1913, as given in evidence before the Coal Commission?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I am unable to add to the information which I gave in reply to the hon. Member's question on February 23rd.

Mr. LAMBERT: When can we have this information? It was given before the Coal Commission and it is important we should have it. Cannot we have it before long?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot say how soon it can be given. I should like to have it quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman, but I really cannot promise it by any given time.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is the President of the Board of Trade pressing the Coal Controller for the figures?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, but as I pointed out in an answer on the last occasion they are not yet available.

Mr. LAMBERT: But is the President of the Board of Trade pressing for the figures?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes we are doing all we can. They would be extremely useful to us and will be given as soon as possible.

LOUGH NEAGH BORINGS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information in respect to the boring for coal or other minerals in Ireland, and
what were the results of such borings in the district of Lough Neagh?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Mid Antrim on the 23rd February summarise the results of the boring for coal at Lough Neagh. The only other recent borings of which I am aware were undertaken by the Ministry of Munitions at Ballycastle, county Antrim, early in 1918, in a search for cannel coal, and I understand that the conclusion reached was that the seams found were not of economic importance.

Mr. CAIRNS: Are the borings still going on?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think not. They came to the conclusion that it was not economically important.

An HON. MEMBER: How much has the Government lost in respect of this enterprise?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I require notice of that question.

SHETLAND (SHIPMENTS).

Mr. CHARLES BARRIE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the shipment of any coal has been sanctioned to Shetland whaling station, in view of the shortage of household coal in the island.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The sanction of the Controller of Coal Mines is not required for the shipment of coal to the Shetland Islands. No complaint has been received recently of any shortage of house coal in the islands, but enquiries are being made.

BUNKER COAL.

Mr. HOUSTON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the state of chaos existing under the Coal Controller's Regulations; that bunker coal for ocean steamers in the port of Liverpool has to be obtained by coasting steamer from South Wales, costing at present £7 9s. 6d. per ton for large coal plus 4s. per ton for putting on board and trimming; that steamers in Liverpool are prohibited by the Coal Controller from taking coal from North Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and the Midlands, while coal from these coalfields has been shipped in the Mersey by coaster for Fowey, Darmouth, and other English Channel ports for bunker purposes; that coal from North Wales and Staffordshire
was sent during the month of January to Cardiff by rail, and that in one instance at least it is alleged some of this coal was shipped in a coaster at Cardiff for Liverpool for bunkering purposes: and that coal has been sent from the Midlands to Plymouth and Southampton for bunkering purposes, entailing a railway charge of about 12s. per ton when the said coal could have been sent to Liverpool for about 4s. per ton, but this was not permitted; if he will explain why coal from Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottingham, North Wales, and Staffordshire is barred for shipment as bunkers in Liverpool while it has been diverted to English Channel ports for bunkering purposes, entailing long railway carriage and a wasteful use of wagons; whether he is aware that the price of bunker coal and detention to steamers waiting for bunkers increase the price of food and other commodities in this country; and if he can state what steps are being taken to remedy this chaos and waste?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My hon. Friend is correct in stating that bunker coal for steamers in the port of Liverpool has to be obtained by coasting steamer from South Wales, and that coal from North Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands is not permitted to be shipped as bunkers in the Mersey. The prices as stated by the hon. Member are approximately correct. It is not the fact that coal is permitted to be shipped from the Mersey to Channel ports for bunkering purposes; coal so shipped is shipped under permit for use as house coal only. North Wales and Staffordshire coal is not permitted to be sent to Cardiff by rail; nor is coal from the Midlands area permitted to be railed to Plymouth or Southampton for bunkering. If any coal has been sent by rail from the Midlands to Channel ports or to the Bristol Channel, it has been in direct contravention of the Controller's directions to the collieries. The railways have been advised that the traffic must not be accepted, and the Coal Mines Department's representative in Cardiff has been instructed to stop shipment of any coal improperly sent down. The Coal Mines Department has no knowledge of any coal so sent down having been shipped from Cardiff back to Liverpool. There was a rumour to that effect, which, notwithstanding enquiry, has never been verified.

Colonel BURN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seaborne coal is being delivered at Dartmouth which puts at least an extra £1 per ton on to the consumer?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: If coal cannot be sent from the Midlands to Plymouth for bunkering what coal is sent for bunkering?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I could not answer that without notice. I should have to refer to the Coal Controller. But I will find out if the hon. Member puts down a question. As regards the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question I cannot say exactly what the figures are.

Colonel BURN: Cannot some change be made to give the consumer some chance?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That question had better be asked of the Minister of Transport.

Sir R. THOMAS: When will North Wales coal be available for shipment to the Mersey for bunkers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say that.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, but I cannot undertake to prophesy.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman examine into the desirability?

Mr. HOUSTON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the month of January at least 3,140 tons of coal were shipped at Liverpool in coasting steamers for Fowey, Cornwall, and another English Channel port for bunkering purposes, while at the same time ocean-going steamers in Liverpool were prohibited by the Coal Control Department from taking any bunker coal at Liverpool unless the same was brought by coasting steamer from South Wales; whether he is aware that the steamer "Clonlee," at Garston, on the Mersey, at the end of January, loaded Lancashire coal for Fowey or Dartmouth, and that the Coal Controller subsequently ordered the discharge of this coal from the steamer into lighters, thereby causing delay to the steamer, expense and waste; whether he is aware that South Wales coal, brought to the Mersey in coasters, has had to be discharged into lighters, again discharged
from the same into railway wagons and conveyed to the coal tips, before it could be placed on board an ocean-going steamer at Garston, entailing an extra cost of 9s. per ton, the bunker coal costing £7 14s. per ton; whether he is aware that the prices paid for bunker coal, which in 1914 only cost 13s. 6d. per ton at Liverpool, adds greatly to the cost of food; and if he will state what steps are being taken to remedy these arrangements?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member. is correct in stating that during January certain shipments of coal from the Mersey to Channel ports for bunkering were made in contravention of the directions of the Coal Mines Department. Measures have been taken to prevent these irregular shipments. The "Clonlee" was an instance in which, contrary to the directions of the Department, local coal had been sent down to be shipped to a Channel port for bunkers, and the coal was taken over by the Department's officer at Liverpool and diverted for local consumption. Full particulars of this transaction and of the cost of bunkers at Garston are not available without further enquiry.

Mr. HOUSTON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Coal Controller has issued instructions that coal is to be supplied at Cardiff in the following order of priority: Home railways and public utility undertakings; coastwise bunker requirements; bunker supplies to vessels ordered abroad in ballast by the Ministry of Shipping; and foreign coaling depôts; whether he is aware, that during the past 14 days homeward-bound steamers with cargoes of foodstuffs have been unable to obtain any bunker coal at the coaling depôts at St. Vincent and the Canary Islands; and if he will state what steps are being taken to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: By priority of supplies at' Cardiff the hon. Member presumably refers to priority in respect of shipments from the port of Cardiff. The present order of priority applicable to coal shipments in the Bristol Channel is: First: bunkers for vessels engaged in the United Kingdom coastwise trade, second: cargoes for vessels proceeding to destinations in the United Kingdom (including the Channel Islands and Admiralty requirements); third: bunkers
for vessels leaving for foreign destinations in ballast; fourth: bunkers and cargoes for vessels loading for bunker depôts. It is because of the shortage of supplies at the coaling depôts that vessels loading for these depôts have been given, for the time being, this priority of foreign coal cargo shipments, in order that the position may be remedied. Cargoes destined for home requirements, therefore, take precedence of all others. As between different home requirements, the priority is (1) household, (2) public utility, (3) rail, (4) industrial.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to the 14 homeward bound steamers which are unable to obtain bunker coal at the coaling depôts at St. Vincent and the Canaries? Are they really held up?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that, but I will try to find out.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. N. GRIFFITHS: If they are held up, would my hon. Friend make representations to the authorities with a view of shipping coal to the Canary Islands from that source?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is what we are trying to do by giving priority.

IRISH SUPPLIES.

Captain REDMOND: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the coal shortage in Ireland still remains acute, and that many Irish industries have practically no stocks on hand and may have to close down, and whether he will take steps to safeguard Irish supplies before satisfying foreign markets?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that present supplies of coal to Ireland are not sufficient to meet current demands. This is due partly to the difficulties of transport, partly to the recent strike at Belfast, and partly to increased consumption. Arrangements have just been made by which additional supplies of coal, amounting to 40,000 tons monthly, will be allocated to Ireland. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

COAL CONTROLLER'S DEPARTMENT.

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will
state what is the present staff employed in the Coal Controller's Department; what buildings are at present occupied by this staff; and what is the approximate annual cost of this department, and if same is paid out of any pooling of the profits of the department or if it is a charge upon the taxes?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Headquarters staff of the Coal Mines Department numbers 422 officials and occupies the first four floors of the Hotel Windsor. The local staff numbers 260, and is housed in divisional offices in 16 different areas. The estimated approximate annual cost for the financial year 1920–21 (including the Treasury contribution towards the expenses of Local Authorities under the Household Fuel and Lighting Orders) is £550,000.
There is at present no law which enables the expenses to be recovered out of the profits of the industry, and up to 31st March, 1919, they were a charge upon the taxes; but the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill provides for them to be charged upon the share of the profits which, under that Bill, will enure to the Controller. It is expected that for the period of the operation of the Bill the share will suffice to enable the expenses to be repaid to the Exchequer in full, and so to prevent any further charge upon the taxes.

Mr. HURD: Was not the figure given upstairs £760,000?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This figure is for 1920–21. The figure given upstairs was for 1919–20.

Mr. HURD: Is there a contemplated reduction?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

IMPORTED MEAT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what price was charged the public for imported mutton on 1st July and 1st October, 1919, and 1st January and 1st March, 1920, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): I have been asked to reply. The maximum retail prices fixed for imported
mutton vary according to the different cuts, for each of which a separate retail price is prescribed. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member copies of the Schedules of prices in force on the various dates referred to.

Sir F. HALL: Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell me what are the prices? Surely that would not require a lengthy reply.

Mr. McCURDY: There are about 25 different cuts in a sheep and a retail price is fixed for each cut. These retail prices do, however, bear a fixed relation to the wholesale prices which are fixed by the Board of Trade, to which the Food Minister only adds a certain percentage. The wholesale prices on the dates referred to were:—

On the 1st July, 1919
…
11½d.


On the 7th July, 1919
…
10½d.


On the 1st Oct., 1919
…
10½d.


On the 1st Jan., 1920
…
10½d.


On the 1st March, 1920
…
10½d.

I am anticipating that on the 15th March next a new schedule of retail prices will be brought into effect and it will be based on the lower wholesale price of 9d.

Sir F. HALL: Docs not that show the very large percentage of profit the Government has been making?

Mr. McCURDY: No, Sir. I wish to state most plainly that these prices show no profit at all, and if hon. Members would only realise that they are dealing here with special cargoes which were purchased during the war and to which war costs and charges of very kind have to be added, they will then be able to understand what perhaps is a little puzzling at first, why it is that the actual cost to the Government is approximately 10d. per lb.

Sir F. HALL: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the reply I received from the Board of Trade only last Thursday giving what the mutton actually cost the Government, and does he realise the tremendous percentage of difference between the prices he has given and those given by the Board of Trade?

Mr. McCURDY: I have not in mind the answer the hon. Member refers to, but I have no doubt as to the accuracy of the figures in the statement I have just read.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate the detailed figures
so that hon. Members may have access to them?

Mr. McCURDY: I will see if it is possible to do so. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question, and then the information he requires can be circulated in the form of an answer to that question.

Mr. SEDDON: Would it not be better to have a loss than let the stuff rot?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate the information he proposes to give to the hon. Member who asked the question with the papers today?

Mr. McCURDY: I will if it is possible. I will go back to the Ministry of Food and give instructions if it is possible. As regards the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Seddon), as to whether it would be advantageous to sell at a loss to the Treasury, that is not a matter for the Ministry of Food to decide.

Colonel NEWMAN: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the supply of meat held by the Government in this country, in the overseas dominions, and elsewhere is more than sufficient for the needs of our population until the end of the year, he will say if there is any reason, other than the reluctance to incur a loss on the original purchase price, which prevents large quantities of this meat of inferior quality being placed on the market and sold for whatever price it will fetch in open competition with home-grown supplies?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The stock of meat held by the Government in this country and elsewhere is not nearly so large as the normal consumption until the end of this year. A reduction in the price of imported mutton has been announced and will come into operation at an early date, but no sufficient reason exists for reducing the price of other imported meat.

Colonel NEWMAN: Does the hon. Member agree with what Lord Devon-port said, that the docks and warehouses are choked with all that we want up to the end of the year?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I must see all the figures before I can say whether I agree with them. I do not quite agree with the details so far as I have seen them.

Mr. E. WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the cargoes of meat on the way to this country are in excess of usual cargoes for this season of the year?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: What has happened is that we are getting now in this country meat which has been stored in Australia, and which we could not get during the War. We were unable to carry it, and now we are getting meat that we have not had for a long time.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that if the suggestions in the Report of the Committee which considered this subject had been carried out we should not have had this plethora of meat?

Colonel NEWMAN: Supposing this meat is put on the market, what will be the loss?

Mr. FORREST: 20.
asked whether the question of subsidising any of the Overseas Dominions meat companies was ever considered; and what decision, in that case, was reached?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Such a suggestion was put forward some time ago and was considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Meat Supplies which reported against it.

ARGENTINE MEAT COMPANY.

Mr. FORREST: asked the extent to which the Government has financially assisted the Argentine Meat Company, of Argentina; upon whose recommendations the subsidy was granted; and the amount of the subsidy and the conditions attached to it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No financial assistance has been given to any Argentine Meat Company, but since August, 1915, the Board of Trade has leased works belonging to a British Company in Argentina and has thereby reaped profits which would otherwise have gone into private hands.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD SUBSIDY.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 25 and 26.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the continuing, the diminishing, or the abolishing of the bread subsidy;
(2) whether he can give the House the decision arrived at by the Government with regard to the bread subsidy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): Yes, Sir. The Government has decided that although it is inadvisable to abolish the bread subsidy at present, it is imperative that a substantial reduction should be effected in the Estimate for the coming financial year. Accordingly, the wholesale price of all flour will be advanced by 19s. 3d. per sack of 280 lbs. on Monday next, 15th instant. It has also been decided that the average rate of extraction required to be obtained from the wheat ground shall be raised from 77 per cent. to 80 per cent. In order to ensure that the benefit of the increased value of existing stocks in the hands of traders shall pass either to the consumer or to the taxpayer, no advance in retail prices of flour and bread will be permitted until Monday, 12th April, and arrangements have accordingly been made to check stocks in the hands of traders at the close of business on Saturday next, 13th instant. It is estimated that the reduction in the bread subsidy for the coming financial year as a result of the decision indicated above, will amount to approximately 45 millions. If no change were made the cost to the Exchequer on present estimates would be approximately 90 millions.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the price of the loaf on the 12th April?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure. I believe it now fluctuates in different districts. Therefore I do not want to give any indication.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING COMMITTEES (LEGAL MEMBERS).

Major BARNES: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will strengthen the Committees on profiteering in the confidence of the persons whose actions are the subject of inquiry, of this House, and of the country by appointing to each Committee a member of the legal profession and a Member of this House, and by making a Regulation that no person who is a director or official of a trade combination shall be a member of such Committees?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If as I assume, the hon. and gallant Member refers to the Sub-Committees appointed by the Central Committee, several Members of this House and of the legal profession are members of the Central Committee, and where desirable their services will be utilised on the Sub-Committees, provided they are prepared to serve. With regard to the last part of the question, there would seem to be no objection to a director or official of a trade combination assisting in the investigation of some other business undertaking in which he is not personally concerned, and a Regulation on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would, I fear, deprive the Committees of material assistance in conducting their inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALSATIAN POTASH.

Sir R. COOPER: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the amount of Alsatian potash, for which the licence was granted in July or August last, was limited to 20,000 tons, and what assurance has been given to France that no further obstacles will be placed upon the importation of Alsatian potash into this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The quantity named was the estimated amount required for agricultural and industrial purposes in this country in addition to the domestic production and the quantities to be received from Germany in part credit for food-stuffs, but it was intimated that further quantities would be licensed should the need therefore become apparent There are at present no restrictions upon the importation of potash salts of French or any other origin, but no assurances on the subject have been given to the French Government.

Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of this material for British agriculturists at present, and will he assist importers as far as a Government Department properly can to get supplies into the country to meet the needs of the community?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will my hon. Friend tell us how we can?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Mr. CAPE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of
timber was imported from Russia in 191S. and whether any steps are being taken to resume the importation of timber from Russia at an early date?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will have a statement printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, this matter is dependent upon the general question of the re-opening of trade with Russia, which is engaging the constant attention of His Majesty Government. Timber, one of Russia's chief exports, will, naturally, be one of the main factors to be considered.

The following is the statement referred to:


Quantity of timber imported from Russia in the year 1913.


Description.
Quantity Loads of 50 cubic feet.


Wood and Timber:


Hewn:


Fir, Pine and Spruce, other than Pit Props or Pit Wood
326,240


Oak
23,005


Pit Props or Pit Wood
1,538,714


Unenumerated
48,661


Sawn or split, planed or dressed:


Fir, Pine and Spruce
3,331,872


Unenumcrated
31,472


Staves of all dimensions
92,109


Furniture woods, hard woods and veneers (not being Ash Beech, Birch, Elm, Oak or Wainscot and excluding Mahogany)
Tons. 9,531

Oral Answers to Questions — WHEAT PRODUCTION.

Mr. SWAN: 17.
asked the President of of the Board of Trade whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest available particulars as to the production of wheat during the current grain year in the various wheat-growing countries, showing also the quantities required for home consumption and the quantities available for export?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been furnished by the Royal Commission on the Wheat Supply with particulars for all the principal countries except Russia, showing the latest estimates of production and requirements, for the year 1919–20, of
wheat and rye. In some European countries these grains are interchangeable. I propose to have these particulars printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON PRICES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Committee appointed to inquire into the increase in the price of Messrs. Coats' cotton have yet arrived at any decision, and, if not, when its decision may be expected?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The investigations referred to in the right hon. Member's question have not yet been completed.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it a fact that all this time, pending the Committee's investigations, Messrs. Coats have been obtaining an extra 2½d. a reel for cotton and if the Committee finds that this is an unjustifiable charge how will the consumer be able to make Messrs. Coats disgorge?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know that the consumer will be in a better position for settling the matter by doing it in too great a hurry. We had better let the Committee report.

Sir F. FLANNERY: When is the Committee expected to report? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the discontent in every household throughout the country at the increase in the price of the article?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am fully aware of that, but I think my hon. Friend is also aware of the very great difficulties there are in the way of dealing with this matter. Everyone will agree that in a matter of this kind it is not wise to be in too great a hurry.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (SHIPS).

Mr. CHADWICK: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the obligation with respect, to wireless telegraphy on ships imposed by the Defence of the Realm Regulations are still in force?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

SENTENCES ON CIVIL PRISONERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel HOARE: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend His Majesty to give some reduction of the sentences which civilian prisoners are serving in order to mark by an act of Royal clemency the ratification of peace.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. This matter has been carefully considered and it is not thought advisable to make any such recommendation.

ST. SOPHIA, CONSTANTINOPLE.

Sir Robert NEWMAN: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in drafting the final terms of peace with Turkey, the Supreme Council, bearing in mind the strong feeling that exists among Christians of practically all denominations in this and other countries that the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople should cease to be used as a mosque and revert to its original purpose as a Christian place of worship, will take steps to prevent its further misuse as a mosque and its restoration to the use for which it was built as one of the great shrines in Christendom.

The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised the Allies do not contemplate any change in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOXER INDEMNITY.

Sir S. HOARE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to the remission of the Boxer indemnity; and, if no decision has yet been reached, whether he will bear in mind the advantage of strengthening our friendly relation with the Chinese Republic by recommending to the contracting parties of the Boxer indemnity treaty a remission of the further payments of the indemnity?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, this has not hitherto been a subject of discussion amongst the contracting parties.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

UKRAINE (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps are contemplated towards opening up trade with the co-operative societies of the Ukraine; if so, what progress has been made; and, if not whether he will state the reasons?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is contemplated that the same general arrangements will apply to trading with the cooperative societies of the Ukraine as apply to the co-operative societies operating elsewhere in Russia, and negotiations are proceeding on this basis.

POLAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked whether the Polish Government consulted the Peace Conference before putting forward its territorial claims on its Eastern frontiers for acceptance by the Soviet Government of Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government is interesting itself in this settlement or taking any part in the negotiations?

The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part, of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I am not aware that any claims have been put forward by the Polish Government for acceptance by the Soviet Government; as regards the second part, any settlement affecting the peace of Europe is naturally of interest to His Majesty's Government, even when, as in this ease, they are not taking any part in the negotiations concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the Polish Government is claiming the right to extend its frontiers to the furthermost limit ever held by the Turkish Empire in the past?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we are prepared to support Poland in view of attack from the East are we not very interested in this country, and will not representations be made advising the Turkish Government to consult us closely on this subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know that I can usefully add anything to what
I have adready said. I have fully explained the attitude of the Government on this subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Am I to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that the British Government have been consulted by the Polish Government before sending their reply to the Russian Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I rather think so, but I cannot for the moment recollect the particular communication, and whether I can roughly characterise it as a consultation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman himself is watching these negotiations, and not leaving it entirely to the Foreign Office to carry them on?

TRADE RESUMPTION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether a statement can now be made as to the progress of the negotiations for opening up trade with Russia in accordance with the Allied decision published on 17th January, 1920?

The PRIME MINISTER: Two delegates selected by the representatives of the Russian Co-operative Organisations in London and Paris have been sent to Moscow in order to examine the detailed questions involved in the re-opening of trading relations. They arrived in Moscow on 25th February, and we have been informed that negotiations are proceeding. In addition, the Supreme Council has given permission for certain representatives selected by the Co-operative Organisations in Moscow to come to this country, in order to expedite the transaction of business. It is expected that they will be here very shortly. Until a. report has boon received from the delegates sent to Moscow and preliminary discussions have taken place with the delegates who are being sent from Moscow, it will be premature to make a further statement.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Who are the trade representatives who are coming here?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be assured that passports will as soon as
possible be allowed to anyone to go to Russia to trade, and not merely to selected individuals?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that great care will have to be exercised.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-ENEMY WARSHIPS (DISPOSAL).

Viscount CURZON: 30
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the disposal of the ex-German ships salved at Scapa Flow, and any other ex-German warships since surrendered to the Allies under the Peace Treaty; (2) how the ex-Austro-Hungarian warships have been disposed of under the terms of the Peace Treaty, and under whose charge they are at present?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer which I gave to a question on this subject on the 19th February.

Viscount CURZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any decision has been arrived at since then?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTION ACT (COMMITTEE).

Mr. CHADWICK: 32.
asked the composition of the Committee set up to consider the operation of the Rent Restriction Act, what evidence it proposes to call, and whether the proceedings will be public or published?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to answer this question. With regard to the first part of the question the particulars were given in the reply which I gave on the 1st of March to the hon. and gallant Member for Southport. The Committee will, of course, themselves decide what evidence it is necessary to call in order to enable them to come to their conclusions, but they are, in fact, hearing evidence amongst others from both property owners' associations and tenants' associations. The proceedings are private, but it is intended that the evidence taken should be published with the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMBASSADOR (WASHINGTON).

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. HOGGE: 34.
asked what financial arrangements have been made for the newly appointed Ambassador to Washington?

The PRIME MINISTER: The revised salary and allowances of the post will be as follows:—Salary, £2,500; Entertainment Allowance, £17,500 a year.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that revision was decided on after Sir Auckland Geddes was appointed, and whether it was known to the other gentlemen who were invited to take the post?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that any other gentlemen were invited to take the post.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that the British Embassy has gone dry, should there not be a reduction in the entertainment allowance?

Sir S. HOARE: Is the entertainment allowance intended to be permanent, or is it merely attached to the salary temporarily?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no; it is intended to be a permanent allowance.

Sir J. D. REES: Is Sir Auckland Geddes rightly described as the Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Am bassador.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIANS IN TURKEY.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the protection of the Armenians in Turkey?

The PRIME MINISTER: Prompt measures have been taken by the French Government to send to General Gourand powerful reinforcements in order to reestablish the position and to prevent further attacks upon the Armenians in Cilicia. French ships have also been sent to Mersina. The Allied Naval Commanders at Constantinople, who had authority to despatch an Allied naval flotilla to Mersina, preferred to keep the
greater part of the Allied Fleet at Constantinople.
With regard to the position at Constantinople identic instructions for immediate and drastic action have been sent to the High Commissioners by the three Governments of France, Italy and Great Britain, who are acting in complete accord. But it would be inexpedient to reveal the character of these instructions until the reply of the Allied representatives has been received.

Lord R. CECIL: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive a reply?

The PRIME MINISTER: I thought that I might have received it before answering the question. I inquired about it now and found that it had not yet arrived.

Sir J. D. REES: Have inquiries been made into the origin of the massacres in Cilicia, and as to who was in fault in the beginning?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have some information on the subject, but nothing to justify us in making a final statement.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: There is a question I intended to ask the Prime Minister by private notice, but perhaps I may as well ask it now—is it a fact that Chaldean Christians have suffered from massacres, and will the Government ensure that all sections of Christians in Turkish territory shall be included in the precautionary measures of protection which are now being devised?

The PRIME MINISTER: There have been no massacres in territories occupied by British troops, and I believe that the Chaldean Christians are now under the British flag in the Mosul area. I consulted the Chief of Staff on this very point no later than last Friday, when I was dealing with measures to be taken for their protection, and the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that ample protection will be given.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that besides the Chaldean Christians who are in the British area there is a considerable number who are "north of Mosul, and that it is most essential in their interests that some provision should be made in the Treaty with Turkey that they shall be
given compensation for all losses and that guarantees shall be provided against a repetition of the evils from which they have been suffering?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am sure that the Chaldeans who are under English or French protection are quite safe, but I understand that there is a considerable number of these people in territory occupied by the Turks?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is quite true, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, but what they are really seeking is that they should have power to defend themselves, and that is what we are engaged in consultation on.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman further take steps to insure that the Turks will give them facilities for migrating from their present villages under the protection of the British or French flag?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think they are in the least anxious to migrate. They are confident that they can defend themselves.

Mr. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister if he has seen recent telegrams from Cilicia giving fuller details of the massacres of the Armenians there. I am inspired to ask the question by a telegram which tells me that 18,000 have been massacred in the district of Marash and that 1,300 women and children perished in a snowstorm on the way to Adana, and that 8,000 Armenians are still in Marash, subject, of course, to daily perils.

The PRIME MINISTER: Such information as has been received does not, I am glad to say, indicate that the massacres have quite reached that formidable figure, but they are formidable enough. The latest figures we have came to something like 15,000. Beyond that, I do not think we have heard anything.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard the further detail of the death by starvation of the women and children who were refugees from Marash?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think, as a matter of fact, they would be included in the 15,000. There is no doubt that a great many of them attempted to escape, and that, in a snowstorm, they perished, but these were included, I think, in the figures I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CELLULOSE COMPANY.

Mr. REMER: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether transferring the liability of the British Cellulose Company from debentures to preference shares materially depreciates the security held by the British Government; and whether, in view of the general disquiet, he will grant facilities for debate?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir, in the opinion of the Government it does not. The arrangement made is, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that best calculated to protect the money previously lent by them to the Company, and to preserve to this country an industry of vital importance in war and of great utility in peace. As regards the last part of the question, as stated on Thursday last, this question can be raised on the salary of the Minister of Munitions.

Mr. HOLMES: Has the Company now the right to raise fresh debentures which will be a prior charge?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question, but I think that I am right in saying that that is not so.

Major BARNES: Is the course that was followed the same course exactly as we followed in the case of the British Dye Stuffs Corporation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not in mind the course that was followed in that case.

Mr. KILEY: What action, if any, did your Department take when the Company stated they were unable to meet their obligations to dispose of your debentures in the open market?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member does not understand what happened. We had a prior charge on all the assets, and we could have forced the Company into liquidation, but we thought it undesirable in the national interests to kill an industry which was started during the War and which is of great national importance in peace time. Accordingly we agreed to transform our prior charge into preference shares carrying a higher rate of interest.

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would not have been the slightest difficulty in getting rid of these shares?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPAPER TRUSTS.

Mr. W. SHAW: 40.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of setting up a Committee to inquire into the profits and business methods of the great newspaper trusts in this country, the Committee to inquire specially as to the reasonable price at which the newspapers should be offered to the public, and into the increased rates demanded by these trusts for advertisements accepted by them?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole subject of trusts and their effect on prices is under careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITION WORKERS (INJURIES).

Mr. TERRELL: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called by the Ministry of Munitions to the case of Miss G. George, of Chippenham, a young person, 20 years of age, who, while engaged on munition work for a Government contractor, suffered injury to one of her eyes, which two years subsequently had to be removed, who is now threatened with total blindness, and who has only received £30 compensation from the insurance company: and whether, to meet cases such as this, he can see his way to set up a fund from which compassionate grants can be made?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): I have been asked to answer this question. I regret I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend last week.

Mr. TERRELL: In view of the fact that this question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and that the answer received last week was to the effect that the Ministry of Munitions were unable to deal with a case such as this, I desire to ask the Prime Minister to answer the second part of the question—whether he can see his way to set up a fund from which compassionate grants can be made? It is an extremely hard case.

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that the Department is looking into the question.

Mr. TERRELL: Then I may put the question at a later date.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIVING (COST).

Mr. CAPE: 43.
asked the Primo Minister whether he can make a statement as to the steps agreed upon by the Allies to reduce the prevailing high cost of living?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Thursday last to questions on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

DEBTS (ADJUSTMENT).

Sir H. NIELD: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the repeated evidences of the German Government's desire to evade their Treaty obligations, the most recent instance of which has been the exculpation of certain alleged war criminals, he will consider the desirability of revising the Treaty concerning the adjustments of debts due to our late enemies so as to cancel the obligation on English traders to pay interest on the sums duo from them to Germans.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's view as to the general attitude of the German Government towards the Treaty.

RUSSIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. SWAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what is the number of Russian prisoners of war still detained in Germany, and whether His Majesty's Government is supporting the claims of the Russian Soviet Government for the repatriation of these men?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information with regard to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government is to the effect that both the German Government and the Soviet Government are anxious to effect the repatriation of the prisoners of war. His Majesty's Government are not called upon to intervene
in any way, as the matter is one which concerns the Soviet Government and the German Government alone.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING CONTROL.

Sir F. HALL: 49.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the report recently issued by the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association dealing with the disorganisation of shipping arising from the present methods of Government control; and whether he will state when the Government propose to remove such control?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): My attention has been drawn to the report of this Association, and the Government are, as the House is aware, considering the question of the continuance of the various controls. The general policy is not to continue controls longer than is necessary, but each control has been dealt with by itself, and it is not possible at the moment to give a date on which they will terminate.

Sir F. HALL: The right hon. Gentleman says that each of these various controls has to be dealt with independently. Will he look specially into the question of the vast amount of tonnage held up owing to the control of shipping by the Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have discussed the matter many times with the Shipping Controller, and I can assure my hon. Friend there is no Member of the House so anxious to end it as he.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR MATERIAL.

Mr. CAIRNS: 50.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the reconstruction policy of the Government, it is their intention to economise in war material, that is, less engines of war and more locomotives and more trucks for industrial purposes; and is it the Government's intention to make more implements of industry and fewer guns and munitions of war?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANTEGNA CARTOONS.

Major HILLS: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal where the Mantegna cartoons,
formerly at Hampton Court Palace, now are; whether one or more of them hag or have been recently restored; whether any part of the cost of the restoration or for moving the pictures for the purpose of restoration or housing or insuring them during restoration, or any other money paid or payable in respect of the restoration, will be paid out of money which Parliament has provided or will be asked to provide; and, if so, under what Vote it will be accounted for?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): The Mantegna cartoons are still at Hampton Court Palace. These pictures were extensively restored and modernised by Lagnerre in the reign of King William III. I understand that an attempt was recently made to discover if it would be possible in the case of one of the pictures in which the original painting by Mantegna was entirely concealed to remove the over-painting and reveal the original work. As I have already explained, these pictures form no part of the national collections, and all the expenses in connection with the restoration were borne by the Civil List. The money is not therefore accounted for under any Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. DOYLE: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the development of trade is being seriously retarded owing to the fact that there are not sufficient wagons available on the railways, and that the transport of goods by road has altogether ceased save that due to individual initiative, with a consequent congestion of perishable and other goods at railway centres and docks; whether he realises that this deadlock is largely the cause of high prices and shortage of many essential articles; and, in view of such a state of things, if he will reconsider the question of endeavouring to develop the transport of goods by road?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. A. Neal): I am aware of the deficiencies in railway facilities, and the same are being remedied as rapidly as possible. The railways, however, are carrying a
larger proportion of the goods traffic than they did before the War; and if the development of trade is being retarded the fault can hardly, be attributed to the railways. The emergency Government road services in connection with certain ports are only being withdrawn as private enterprise becomes able to meet the needs. The railway cartage facilities, supplemented by lorries obtained from the Government, are considered adequate for railway work. The second part of the question is a matter of opinion in which the hon. Member must form his own conclusions. With regard to the last part, I can add nothing to previous answers that have been given to the hon. Member on the same subject.

CANAL CONTROL.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: 54.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to raise the tolls on the canals now controlled by his Department; whether this can be done without his first taking possession of them under Section 3 of the Transport Act; whether he proposes to exercise the powers granted to him for this purpose under that Section; and, if so, at what date and in respect of what canals?

Mr. NEAL: A deputation from the Canal Association, which I recently received on behalf of the Minister, strongly urged him to take possession, under Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act, of the canals now controlled by him under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, as a necessary step to his giving directions for the raising of the tolls. The question is one of extreme difficulty and complexity, and no decision has yet been arrived at. There will be no unnecessary delay in dealing with the matter. This reply does not affect the canals which are railway owned and in the possession of the Minister as part of the railway undertakings.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not think it desirable to take possession of these canals at the earliest possible moment, in order that the tolls may be raised and an end put thereby to the subsidy now being paid?

Mr. NEAL: There is a great deal to be said in favour of that course, but, as I intimated in the answer, there are difficulties in connection with it. The whole
subject is being mast carefully considered.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the canals pay their way without a raising of the tolls?

Mr. INSKIP: Is it proposed to submit this question, with others, to the Committee the hon. Gentleman indicated?

Mr. NEAL: That Committee has not yet been definitely appointed. This certainly will be a very convenient topic for its consideration.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the canals now controlled by his Department would revert to the canal companies on the expiry or revocation of the Defence of the Realm Regulations; whether, in such an event, the companies would be entitled to be placed in the same financial position as regards revenue and expenditure as they were before the War; and, if so, how it is proposed to effect this purpose?

Mr. NEAL: The answer to to first part of the question is in the affirmative as regards canals controlled by the Minister under Defence of the Realm Regulation 9H. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but it must not be assumed that the owners have suffered financially by the control.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any assurance that possession will be taken of the canals before the expiry of the Regulation, seeing that there is great anxiety on the part of canal companies as to their position?

Mr. NEAL: I can assure my hon. Friend that a definite decision will be arrived at long before that.

REDUCED RAILWAY FARES (ARMY).

Lieut.- Colonel W. GUINNESS: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now state the cost to the public of the concession by which the Army when not travelling on duty receive their railway tickets under certain conditions for one-third of the rate payable by the general public?

Mr. NEAL: The difference between the money value of the concessional fares paid by officers and men of His Majesty's Army when travelling on leave, and the full public fares, is estimated by the Railway Executive Committee to have amounted in April of last year to
£470,000 for the month. As demobilisation has proceeded, there has been a progressive decrease. In October the difference had fallen to £158,000, or 66 per cent. less than in April, and a further reduction has no doubt since occurred.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As demobilisation is now practically at an end, is it proposed to finish this present arrangement and to return to the pre-War custom of paying ordinary rates?

Mr. NEAL: That is primarily a matter for the War Office. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"] I still think that it is primarily a matter for the War Office, Obviously the Minister of Transport would welcome anything which would increase the revenue of the railways.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it the duty now of the Secretary of State for War to be the guardian of the public purse?

Mr. NEAL: Of all the Ministers of His Majesty's Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: Does not the Ministry of Transport fix the faros to be paid by people travelling?

Mr. NEAL: The Minister has power under the Act to fix the fares to be paid, but I think it will be realised that he would wish to act in consultation with the Secretary of State for War in a matter affecting the Army,

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the Minister consider the taxpayers who have to pay the difference?

Colonel YATE: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will sec that officers are not deprived of this very small concession?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I will certainly do my best.

Sir S. HOARE: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Transport said last December that he was discussing the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he hoped to arrive at a. decision immediately 2 Has any decision been reached?

Mr. NEAL: Not yet.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Does the same apply to the Navy?

RATES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Major BARNES: asked the Minister of Transport who has been appointed chairman of the Rates Advisory Committee at a salary of £5,000 a year; and what are the terms of his appointment?

Mr. NEAL: The Chairman of the Rates Advisory Committee is Mr. Gore Browne, K.C., who was appointed on the nomination of the Lord Chancellor in October last. The Chairman is required to devote the whole of his time to the duties of his appointment. The salary of £5,000 a year was authorised by the Treasury as a personal arrangement till 15th August, 1921.

FISH TRAFFIC FROM IRELAND.

Captain REDMOND: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the loss which is being inflicted on the Irish fishing trade by the neglect and carelessness of the railways and carriers in the transit of fresh fish to the English market; whether he is aware that a consignment of fresh herrings sent by a Mr. P. Fitzgerald, of Cleggan, in Ireland, to Leicester, despatched on 21 st February, did not arrive till the evening of the 25th, and were unsaleable, and were seized and destroyed; whether when a claim is lodged for compensation for such destruction the railway authorities contend they are not responsible for loss of market or any delay in transit; and whether, as the action of the railway authorities threatens to destroy the fishing industry of Ireland, as, owing to the price of nets and gear and the carriage freights, the industry is a struggling one, he will take steps to protect the Irish fishing traders by remedying without delay the state of affairs complained of?

Mr. NEAL: According to the information in the hands of the Ministry, it is considered that the facilities available for fish traffic from Ireland are reasonably adequate. It will be realised that, even under normal conditions, isolated cases of delay may occur; but with regard to the particular instance mentioned, if the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of the sending stations and route by which the consignment was despatched, I shall be pleased to cause enquiries to be made. As to the question of claims, if a trader considers he has a right to recover
damages under his contract with the railway company, the ordinary legal methods of testing the question are available to him.

SUTTON TOWN, NOTTS.

Mr. W. CARTER: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has come to a decision on the question of reopening the line between Sutton Junction and Sutton Town, Notts, that was closed owing to the war?

Mr. NEAL: The utility of the line in question has been greatly diminished by the opening of a new line through Sutton-in-Ashfield in April, 1917, and I am advised that its re-opening for passenger traffic would be uneconomical, besides adding to existing difficulties at Sutton Junction.

Mr. CARTER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the closing of this particular line is hampering trade and commerce and inflicting great hardship on the people of the district, who have to walk a mile and a half, and if representations have been made by the public authority in favour of the re-opening of the line?

Mr. NEAL: I am quite aware that this has caused some inconvenience, but the railway companies concerned and the Minister of Transport have to strike a balance as between convenience and inconvenience and expense.

Mr. CARTER: Will the hon. Gentleman further investigate the matter and ascertain the views of the inhabitants?

Mr. NEAL: I shall be very glad to consider any representations my hon. Friend brings to my notice.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. GILBERT: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention had been called to the great obstructions caused to London traffic in the vicinity of London markets by market carts using main and other streets for standing purposes; whether this matter has been or will be considered by the Advisory Committee on London Traffic; and, if so, when can a Report with any recommendations be expected?

Mr. NEAL: This matter is already under consideration by the Technical Committee of the Advisory Committee on
London Traffic, who are in touch with the various local authorities concerned, but it is not possible to state when their final recommendations will be made. The matter is, as the hon. Member is probably aware, also receiving consideration by the Committee on Wholesale Markets, appointed by the Minister of Food.

Mr. GILBERT: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the number of street accidents in South London on Wednesday, 3rd March; whether his Department has issued or propose to issue any new regulations for motor traffic in the streets of London or can he state if the matter has been or will be considered by the advisory committee on London traffic; and, if the latter, can he state when a definite Report can be expected.

Mr. NEAL: The attention of the Minister had not previously been called to these accidents. Certain alterations in the stopping places of omnibuses and tramcars, and experiments in regard to the control of slow-moving traffic and the acceleration of omnibus running, have been put into effect on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, but I have no evidence that these have in any way contributed to the number of street accidents. The Advisory Committee work in close association with the Home Office and the Police, whose representatives on the Committee would, in ordinary course, draw attention to any such danger.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS.

Sir H. BRITTA IN: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the time has now arrived for this country to dispense with the visé for British subjects carrying British passports returning to Great Britain?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under the Regulations now in force, British subjects in possession of British passports travelling to the United Kingdom do not require a British visé, and the Regulation which formerly made such a visé necessary was abolished about a year ago. Where, in order to comply with the requirements of a foreign Government through whose territory a British subject is desirous of travelling en route for the United Kingdom, it is necessary for the traveller to obtain a British endorsement
on his passport, such endorsement is given gratis on application.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: In view of the expression of opinion in the House on Thursday night, will the Government make representations to the French and other Governments to abolish the visé system as soon as possible?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no visé system in so far as British subjects are concerned who are returning from abroad.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Going?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a matter for foreign countries. In so far as the British Government are concerned, they are prepared to meet any foreign country in making international travelling as simple and as easy as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will the hon. Gentleman lead the way?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will you abolish the endorsement as well as the visé?

Lord R. CECIL: Does the hon. Gentleman not think the time has arrived to review the whole question of the visé, and will he see that it is put on a peace basis and not a war basis?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I can assure my Noble Friend that the passport system, as far as the British Government is concerned, is now on a peace basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The difficulty is in reference to foreign countries. A British passport system also is an essential as long as the Aliens Act remains on the Statute Book.

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will inquire into certain cases showing that it is very far from the fact that the passport system is on a peace basis?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I shall have the greatest pleasure in looking at any case, and I promise if there is any hardship that if it is within the power of the Foreign Office it will do its best to remedy it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE (DISTRESS).

Lieut. - Colonel W. GUINNESS: 63
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard
to the distress in Central Europe, any action will be taken to set free the investments in Great Britain and the money in court to the credit of Austrian and German subjects by marriage who were British subjects by birth so that they can realise securities and get money paid out?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the terms of the Treaties of Peace with Germany and Austria the property in this country belonging to German and Austrian nationals will be held as security for the payment of claims by British nationals with regard to their property in Germany and Austria and debts owing to them by German and Austrian nationals. Until these claims and debts have been satisfied the question of any general release of such property cannot be considered. Payments of monthly allowances to the British-born wives of Gorman and Austria nationals have been authorised where the Board of Trade were satisfied that such allowances were required for maintenance purposes. Debts due to British-born wives of German nationals residing in Germany must be paid through the Clearing Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Sir H. BRITTA IN: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is able to inform the House as to the measure of success of the British Industries Fair, and whether it is to be followed by similar exhibitions elsewhere?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The British Industries Fairs recently held in London, Glasgow and Birmingham have enjoyed a full measure of success. No detailed estimate can yet be framed of the total of the busines done, but when the figures are available they will be published.
The Department of Overseas Trade proposes to continue its policy of organising such fairs for the promotion of British trade, and especially the export trade. The Department also has in hand the organisation of touring exhibitions of British manufacturers, which will visit the British Dominions and other parts of the world. One great feature of these fairs and exhibitions is the fact that they are
self-supporting and, therefore, no charge falls upon the State.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Seeing that Government Departments are occasionally criticised is the hon. Gentleman aware that the buyers of this exhibition expressed their entire and unbounded satisfaction at the manner in which it was organised?

Mr. KILEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the profound concern of the promoters of the motor exhibition and textile and other exhibitions at what they consider the unfair competition of Government Departments, and can he also say if it is proposed to continue these exhibitions, and is he prepared to compensate the other people, and can he also—

Mr. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Member kindly give notice of some of those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT.

MEDICAL REMUNERATION (ARBITRATION).

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to make a statement as to the result of the arbitration on the amount to be paid to medical men under the National Insurance Service?

Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir. The arbitrators have found that the sum of 11s. per insured person to be made available to provide payment for medical men under the National Health Insurance Service Scheme is a sum which should properly be paid to them. After careful consideration, in view of the promise made during the War that the amount available for payment to medical men should be increased and in view of the improved conditions of service required to be rendered under the new medical benefit regulations, the Government proposed that, apart from the special arrangement for mileage and the administration of drugs, the amount of 11s. per insured person should be made available for this purpose. The Insurance Acts Committee (representing the Conference of Local Medical and Panel Commitees throughout the country) were unable to accept this offer, and pressed the Government to provide a sum of 13s. 6d. After prolonged and friendly negotiations, it was ultimately agreed that the matter should be
referred to arbitration, and Mr. W. F. Gore Browne, K.C., Sir Richard V. Vasser-Smith, and Dr. J. C. Stamp were agreed upon as arbitrators, the Government on its side undertaking to recommend Parliament to give effect to the findings of the arbitrators, and the Insurance Acts Committee on their part undertaking that they and the Panel Committees would co-operate in securing from the practitioners throughout the country full and efficient service, with goodwill, under the settlement as a whole, including the terms of the award. After a full hearing of the case on both sides, the arbitrators find that the offer which I proposed on behalf of the Government was a fair and adequate offer; and proposals will accordingly be submitted to Parliament in due course to give effect to this finding. I may say that the utmost goodwill exists on both sides, and a sincere appreciation of the impartiality and service of the arbitrators.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much this will cost the Exchequer?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot give details now, but they can be supplied in connection with the National Health Insurance Bill which will shortly be introduced.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WEST INDIAN COLONIES.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the proposal that, in return for the cancellation of part of our War Debt with the United State of America, the British West Indian Colonies should be transferred to that country; whether he is aware that this suggestion has aroused great resentment and indignation in the British West Indies, as well as in other portions of the Empire, and whether, in these circumstances, he will make a, definite and final statement that there is no intention whatsoever on the part of His Majesty's Government to barter away these loyal and ancient Colonies?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is not the slightest intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to barter or sell any portion of the British West Indies, whose inhabitants are loyally attached to the Crown and intensely proud of their membership of the British Empire.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH LOAN.

Mr. ASQUITH: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any information to the House in regard to the Anglo-French loan?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Anglo French loan of $500,000,000, which was issued on October, 1915, on the joint and several security of the Governments of the United Kingdom and France, matures on the 15th October of this year. After full consideration, the French Finance Minister and I came to the conclusion that it was not desirable to renew this loan in the United States of America and that we ought to take the necessary steps to provide for our respective halves. The method in which this is to be done is, of course, a matter for each Government to decide as it thinks fit. The House will be glad to know that the British Government has no intention of reborrowing outside the United Kingdom any part of the $250,000,000 required, so that when the loan is repaid we shall have reduced our external debt by over £50,000,000. We shall employ for the purpose resources already available or in sight in the United States and to the extent to which they are not sufficient we shall ship gold. I may add that we have already made a beginning by buying Anglo-French Bonds in the market at a considerable discount below par.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (QUESTIONS).

Brigadier-General CROFT: (by Private Notice)
asked the Leader of the House a question in regard to the order in which questions are put to Ministers. I put a question down for to-day to the Minister of Munitions, this being the day on which he replies earliest, but my question was not reached. May I enquire of the Leader of the House if it is possible for the Minister of Munitions, who interests Members so much, to have his questions taken a little earlier?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my right hon. and gallant Friend knows, it is very difficult to arrange that all the interesting subjects shall be taken. We have tried to meet the House, and I will consult with my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) as to whether anything more can be done.

Brigadier-General CROFT: The Minister of Munitions is the most interesting subject.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS informed the House that the Committee on Group A of Private Bills, not being appointed to meet until to-morrow, the Promotors of the Blaydon (Housing) Order, scheduled to the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Housing) Bill for confirmation, which Bill is set down for consideration to-morrow by the Committee on Group A of Private Bills, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Harry William Taylor, Major in His Majesty's Army, stationed at Hull, was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.

Ordered, That the said Harry William Taylor do attend the Committee on Group A of Private Bills to-morrow, at half past Eleven of the Clock.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir Owen Philipps; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Frederick Thomson.

Report to He upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY, ETC.).

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I beg to move,
That the proceedings set out in the second column of the table annexed to this Order shall be appointed for the day mentioned in the first column of that table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that table.
For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at the time appointed in this Order the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed in this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall then proceed successively to put forthwith any Question, or Questions, necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded. Provided that in order to dispose of the outstanding Supplementary Votes in the Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates in Committee of Supply the Question shall be put in respect of the total amount of the Supplementary Votes outstanding in respect of the Civil Services and Revenue "Departments Supplementary Estimates.
Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m., and any Motion for adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on the date on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, shall, on that date, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order on that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment

Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.


Tuesday, 9th March
…
All outstanding Supplementary Estimates in Committee of Supply
7.45 p.m.


Wednesday, 10th March
…
Report of all outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Supplementary Estimates, and of the Resolution of the Committee of Supply on the 23rd February with respect to the Army Vote on Account
8 p.m.


Thursday, 11th March
…
Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Force Estimates).




Vote A and Votes 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Air Force Estimates in Committee of Supply
11 p.m.


Monday, 15th March
…
Civil Services and Revenue Departments Vote on Account in Committee of Supply
—


Tuesday, 16th March
…
Report of the Civil Services and Revenue Departments Vote on Account
8.15 p.m.

so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding anything in any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted or suspended under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, or of Standing Order No. 4.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the Chair, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

This Order shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the steges of any Bill ordered to be brought in upon a Resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means.

On Tuesdays, 23rd and 30th March, and Wednesdays, 24th and 31st March, Government Business shall have precedence."

Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.


Wednesday, 17th March
…
Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates)
8.15 p.m.


Thursday, 18th March
…
Vote A and Vote I of the Navy Estimates in Committee of Supply. Proceedings necessary for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means and to dispose of Resolutions proposed in that Committee
11 p.m.


Monday, 22nd March
…
Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (on going into Committee of Supply on Army Estimates)
11 p.m.


Tuesday, 23rd March
…
Vote A of the Army Estimates in Committee of Supply
11 p.m.


Wednesday, 24th March
…
Report of outstanding Resolutions of Committee of Supply and of Resolutions of Committee of Ways and Moans
5 p.m.




Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading
11 p.m.


Thursday, 25th March
…
Consolidated Fund Bill, remaining stages
11 p.m.

This is the first time that a Resolution of this kind has been necessary since the outbreak of war, and I may add that it is the first time that I have had anything to do with a Resolution of this kind from this Box, though I have had many opportunities of dealing with similar Resolutions when I sat on the other side of the Table, and the House will not be surprised to hear that in a discussion of this kind I should prefer the other position, the attack rather than the defence. In dealing with such a Resolution, there are two points of view, both relevant but both quite distinct, from which the House ought to consider it, the first being whether or not, without regard to the circumstances which have brought about such a situation, the Resolution is necessary, and, if so, whether that necessity is met in the best way. The second consideration is whether or not, by good management, the necessity might have been avoided, and I will deal with the second of these considerations first. If the House imagines that the Government were under the illusion that the 31st March was a movable date, and that we have simply drifted into the position without making any attempts to foresee and guard against it, that is a mistake. As a matter of fact, before the end of last Session, when we were considering at what date the House should meet this year, I went into the subject with my Noble Friend the Patronage Secretary, as fully as I could, in order to see what time was absolutely necessary to get through
the business before the 31st March, and there are, as it seems to me, three-different possibilities as to the methods by which we could have avoided this-necessity. The first is that it might have been done by a better arrangement of the business since the House met, but if anyone will consider what the subjects, are, apart from finance, which have been dealt with, I think he will be inclined to agree with me that none of these were avoidable. On the second day of the Session my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) put a question to me which enabled me to give the answer that, though we hoped that special precautions and special action would not be necessary, the time was so short that it might be necessary to do something such as I am proposing to-day.

Apart from financial business we have dealt only with three or four Bills, the necessity of which, I think, will be admitted. These were, so far as I remember them, the Coal Bill, the Bill for Unemployment Insurance—and if that had not been started, the House would quite understand it would have made a great delay in introducing a reform which the whole House considered necessary—but the subject which occupied most of the time was the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill. I know there was a difference of opinion as to the details of that measure, and, unfortunately, it has taken five days instead of, as we hoped, two or, at the most, three. If that had not happened,
I think it is possible we might have escaped this resolution. I think the House, if they look at all the business on which we have been occupied, will, if they are inclined to consider the matter fairly, come to the conclusion that since the House met we have wasted no time in getting this business done. The second method by which it could have been avoided would have been by calling the House together earlier. We certainly carefully considered that before the time was fixed, but when I remind the House that Parliament met last year on, I think, the 4th February, that it sat right through till two days before Christmas, with only something like a week's vacation at Easter, and something like a fortnight at Whitsuntide, and three months for the Autumn recess, when they take that into account and realise also that not only was the House sitting for this long period, but that owing to the new method of procedure the amount of work done in Committee put a strain on the House which it had never known before, if they take that into account, and take into account also that we have not merely considered that, but that the constant sitting of the House makes it almost impossible for the departments to keep abreast of their work, if they take all that into account, I think they will agree with me that we could not have arranged for the House to have met earlier this year.

4.0 P.M.

There is a third way by which we might have avoided the necessity. We might have taken private Members' time right up to Easter for the purposes of the Government. We considered that, but we were all anxious that as quickly as it could be done we should get back to the pre-war practice in regard to the procedure of the House, and we came to the conclusion deliberately that it was better to face the risk of running short of time that to deprive hon. Members of a privilege which I, as an old Member of the House, know that they greatly value, and. so far as I am concerned, I say that even if I had known we should be forced to adopt this plan I should not have thought it right to have taken that course. The interest which has been shown in private Members' discussions proves conclusively the un-desirability of depriving the House of the opportunity which private Members'
time gives. These were the only three methods by which this difficulty could have been avoided. Let me say a word or two about the other side of the position in which we find ourselves to-day. In the first place, the amount of time which is given, of course, is much greater than that given to all the financial business when the War was going on. That is natural and is no satisfaction to the House. As a matter of fact, however, I have looked the matter up, and I find that the time is very nearly the same as that which was given in the last year before the War. Even that, however, is not a complete justification, because the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates were never so large on any previous occasion. I would ask hon. Members to consider this point. Immediately after the Armistice, or at all events near that time, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was asked whether we would introduce the Estimates in the ordinary way and get rid of the Votes of Credit which had applied during the War. I gave the pledge then that the Government would introduce ordinary Estimates, and that pledge was carried out by my successor. The House will understand that when these Estimates were prepared we were not in a normal position—we were passing from war to peace—and it was quite impossible, as I think I pointed out at the time, to give Estimates with anything like the accuracy possible in an ordinary year. In this connection I would remind the House that although the Estimates are much larger than the figure given in the Budget Speech they do not exceed, indeed they are below, the total amount which was given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the White Paper issued during October. These Supplementary Estimates bring the total expenditure nearly, but not quite, up to the figure which was given by my right hon. Friend in October.

Sir F. BANBURY: Could my right hon. Friend say what has been the total amount of the Supplementary Estimates since October?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not the figure, but I think it is £28,000,000. I am certain that I am accurate in saying that the total amount does not exceed the estimate given by my hon. Friend in the White Paper in October, because I have looked into it.

Mr. J. JONES: May I ask if that estimate includes the subsidies paid to the railway companies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It includes every expenditure. Let me say, in passing, that some of these Supplementary Estimates could have been avoided. There has been in many Departments an increase in expenditure which was not anticipated, but, on the other hand, there has been also an increase in receipts which was not anticipated, and there is no technical reason which would have prevented us putting the one against the other and so avoiding the necessity of producing a Supplementary Estimate. This course, however, was not only condemned, and rightly condemned, by a Select Committee, but we ourselves felt that it was a bad system of finance, and, although it was not absolutely necessary to produce Supplementary Estimates, we have not put the one against the other. That was the position, and I do not think that there is any Member of the House who doubts that the Resolution that I am now moving is necessary. It is necessary not merely to comply with what has always been the practice of the House, but it is necessary also that all these financial Votes should be passed in order to fulfil the law, and they have to be passed before March 31st. I am glad to say that the necessity seems to be recognised, to judge by the Amendments which appear on the Paper, Without discussing them in detail, I shall glance over these Amendments. An Amendment in the names of some of my hon. Friends suggests that a small select Committee should be appointed to decide in what way the time should be utilised. The words used in the Amendment are:
To report…on the best method of securing, with general assent and the maximum of free discussion, the completion of the necessary financial business before 11 p.m. on Thursday, 25th March,
That is precisely what, to the best of our-ability, we have tried to do, and I would point out that even if we assume that these hon. Members would be much more successful than we have been, the net result would be that at least one day, and probably two days, would be lost by adopting: their plan. I have nothing but commendation for the names of the hon. Members who are specially mentioned, but if hon. Members will look at them, they will see that there are two initial
difficulties which it might be rather difficult to overcome. In the first place, I think it extremely doubtful whether such a body, consisting of so many Members, would arrive at any agreement at all upon the subject, and, secondly, if by any chance they did arrive at any agreement it is exceedingly doubtful whether it would command the approval of the House any more than the recommendation made by the Government. The Government, therefore, could not accept the Amendment, and I think the House will agree with them. Then there are some other Amendments, as was to be anticipated, by my right hon. Friend, the Junior Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). So far as I understand them, if they were adopted, it would not be possible to end the business on the date that we have taken. The effect of them would be, not to give more discussion, but to enable the House or a certain number of Members to spend the necessary time in having a very large number of Divisions.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: They select which Votes they wish to discuss.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should be surprised if anything would be gained by having a great number of Divisions. The next Amendment is that of the Leader of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson) and another hon. Member (Mr. Tyson Wilson), and, as far as I am able to understand it, its object is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) who proposes to take away the time allotted to individual Members of the House who have had the luck to secure a place in the ballot for private Members' nights. I say at once that so far as the Government are concerned we have no objection to that proceeding, but, though I have sat on one or other of the Front Benches for a long time, I have still very much sympathy with the ordinary Member of the House, and it seems to me that it would be a great hardship, in a case where the ballot has taken place and a Member has actually secured a place, that he should be deprived of his opportunity.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Might I explain what I intended? Of course, to-morrow is not included in this suggestion, but I thought it might be possible for the Government to use their good offices so that those three hon. Members who have
secured the other three dates and have therefore reduced their chances in the ballot to a certainty should have the first three Wednesdays, the only days after Easter, in order that those Debates on the subjects for which they have been fortunate enough to secure the ballot should take place.

Mr. BONARLAW: I have no hesitation in saying that, not only from the point of view of the Government, but, so far as I can judge, from the point of view of the public interest of having a longer discussion on these Estimates, I should greatly prefer the an arrangement which my right hon. Friend has suggested. Perhaps the best plan would be for my right hon. Friend to put his Amendment upon the Paper in a form to include both proposals. I do not think that the Government have any power to select the subjects to be taken in private Members' time after Easter, but if the proposal be adopted and it be the wish of the House, the Government will gladly accept it, or, if there should be any doubt about it, I should be perfectly ready to have it decided by a vote of the House without putting on the Government Whips, so that we could feel that the House was expressing its view on the matter. This, so far as I can see, covers all the Amendments on the Paper. I know that the House realises that, whatever time is taken up in discussing this Resolution, by that amount of time the discussion on the Estimates is limited. It is therefore an advantage that we should come to a conclusion on this Resolution as soon as possible. It is inevitable, I suppose, that the Government should be properly rebuked for its mismanagement of the business, but it is not inevitable that the rebuke should take a long time.

Lord R. CECIL: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is necessary to close the business of Supply by March 25th?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has called my attention to that matter. It would in any case have been necessary to terminate it on the following day or at the latest on the day after, because it must go to the House of Lords. But there is another reason. The Government have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary that there should be a Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill before the House rises for Easter. I hear some hon. Members say
that nobody wants it. I recognise the cheers of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London.

Mr. DEVLIN: Did you hear my cheer?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Whatever may be the views of these two hon. Members, the Government have brought forward this Resolution and think it absolutely essential, and I shall be surprised if the House does not agree with me, in view of the position, that we should make it perfectly plain that so far as the Government are concerned we do mean to proceed with this Bill. I am certain that they would not be content if we were to rise before we took this Bill. Even from the point of view of those who think the Bill is no use I think it will be agreed that it is desirable that the House should have the earliest opportunity of saying what it thinks upon what is the most important Bill of this Session.

Mr. SPEAKER: Major Hills—

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can you inform us what course it is proposed to take? Will there be a Second Reading Debate on the first Amendment? Will it be moved at once without any general discussion?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Durham (Major Hills), raises what is equivalent to a Second Reading discussion. When that is disposed of, I shall proceed with the Amendment, in the order in which they stand on the Paper.

Major HILLS: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
a Select Committee, representative of all opinion in the House, be appointed forthwith with instructions to report during to-morrow's Sitting on the best method of securing, with general assent and the maximum of free discussion, the completion of the necessary financial business before 11 p.m. on Thursday, 25th March.

[The following names appeared on the Paper for nomination as Members of the Committee: Sir F. Banbury, Mr. William Graham, Mr. Hogge, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. W. Nicholson, and Colonel penry Williams.]

Major HILLS: This Amendment, which I have put down with my hon. Friend,
is not intended in any hostile sense against the Government proposal, I quite recognise that the finance of the year has got to be got through on the 25th March, but what I object to is that when the House has got to discuss finance this proposal has been, so to speak, cast at its head. We have got simply to accept the Government's terms. What is the general position in which the House finds itself? My right hon. Friend has just described the position of the Government. He has put that quite fairly before the House. I do not think he has said a word to which anybody objects. I do not think it is the fault of the Government that there is so short a time to deal with finance. It is possible that they might have curtailed the discussion on the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill, but I agree that there was on all sides a general wish to debate that Bill at some length. Therefore I do not start by blaming the Government, but I would like the right hon. Gentleman to consider what is the position of private Members like myself. We have now before us for the first time since the War a compartment Closure Resolution moved on behalf of the Government, and that is the case before there has been even a shadow of obstruction. There has never been a House of Commons so considerate as this one to the Government, or one in which there has been so great a spirit of fair Debate without the least shadow of obstruction. I would only have to refer to the large number of Statutes passed last year in order to illustrate that. I do not think there has been any House of Commons in the whole of our history that has passed so many important measures, and they were all debated without any vexatious oposition. My experience in this House, which now extends over fourteen years, has led me to the conclusion that it is not obstruction that causes the Closure, but it is the Closure that causes obstruction. I am certain that many Members of the House will agree with me in that conclusion—that the Closure is the worst means of attempting to facilitate the business of the House. We know that we can speak only for a certain time, and the Minister who is in charge of the business has only to take up a certain amount of the time in which the House is allowed to talk,
and what happens is that at the end of that time he is safe and the Debate is closed. I think that that has been one of the causes of obstruction and of vexatious opposition in the House in the past. I am afraid that that sort of thing will continue if Governments continue in the course that has been followed in the past.
I would like to draw attention to the effect of the Closure upon the position of the House of Commons. I might say a good deal upon that point, but I will go on to deal with the effect upon the country. I do not think that everyone realises what has been the effect on the country and what will be the effect of this procedure. There are two questions in which the people generally are interested—high prices and Government extragance. What will the country think when after two days' discussion on the Estimates, which are enormous, we then cease to discuss them, and are asked to be silent? In these two days we have discussed £1,500,000 of the Votes, and now in about four hours we are asked to dispose o£ £27,000,000. Surely it is no use for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to preach economy to us when as soon as we try to produce economy we are told not to talk any more. Further, from the Government's own point of view, what must a Minister feel when ho knows that as soon as his Estimates have passed the Treasury there is no other barrier, and his Votes will go through without a single word of criticism? The Votes that we discussed in these two days were by no means important votes, but the discussions on them were very fair and reasonable, and showed that there was serious matter for criticism, but there are many far more important votes to come. I believe we all want to restore to this House the real power of checking the Government Departments. They really require to be checked, and the only time when we can check them most efficiently is in the discussion of their Estimates. It is about the only time that a Member of this House can say a word on them, and yet when we start checking them in that way we are told to stop. I want the Government to consider the effect of this procedure upon the reputation of Parliament. Representative government no longer stands in the same position as it did before the War. It has now a competitor outside, and unless we have free discussion the House of Commons cannot
hold its position. We are anxious to obtain some control of its own business by Parliament. I am sure that the Closure does not assist Parliament to hold its position. I do not want to put the case too high, but I do appeal to the House on that point.
Then again, there is the position of the private Member as against control by the Government, and that brings me to the subject of the Amendment which stands in my name. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) said he considered the Government scheme was the more advisable one, but I think that my scheme has got great advantages even for the Government. It brings the House into consultation with regard to its business, and makes the House the master of its own fate. He also said that my proposal meant the waste of one day, and that time was precious. I agree it is precious, but I think it would be Well spent if we could start again with free discussion in this House, and put the Closure a degree further off. Then he criticised the names of those whom I suggest should be taken into consultation, but in reply to that I point out that we only received the notice of this Motion on Friday morning and we had to do what we could in the course of that day to meet it with another proposal. I submit that the names we have chosen are such as command generally the respect of the House, and I do not think that Members will agree with what the Leader of the House suggested, that these Members whose names have been given would not be likely to agree among themselves. I am certain that their discussions would do good. If we had this Committee set up it would take a question like this out of the hands of the Government and it would be brought into consultation with the House, and the effect will be to restore what my Noble Friend has called the "corporate respect of this House." I quite agree that the Government alone cannot re-introduce free discussion in this House such as there was in former days. They have to come to the House and the House ought to come and make a corporate bargain with them, and so bind itself to see that this bargain is carried out.
I repeat that I do not move this in any hostile spirit. I have been a long time a Member of this House, and I value its
tradition. We have had no closure such as this since the War. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman is the last man who would want to re-introduce the old system of which so much was heard some years ago. That would do harm to the Government, harm to the Opposition and harm to Parliament generally. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (the Leader of the House) to trust the House, and I think it has always trusted him, and I think he might rely upon it to help him out of this difficult position. It is for him to ask the House, when it makes objection, whether it cannot find a better way, and I think it can find a better way, and it is in the hope that a better way will be found that I move this Amendment.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I beg to Second the Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention to the effect that must follow on the House itself from the Government Motion as it stands. I would also direct attention to what must be the effect, and what, according to all experience, is the effect on the business of a Motion of this kind. I believe that all those who have had experience in the House will support me in saying that, first of all, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, closure breeds obstruction, and it is also true that that follows because it at once becomes the automatic interest and advantage of every Opposition not to have as much discussion as possible, and not to get the time employed as well as may be, but to get as little discussion as possible in order that they may make the best case outside against the closure policy of the Government. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend says we should not gain under this suggestion, I venture to reply to him with great respect that he must not judge the matter purely in terms of time. The object of this House should be to secure the maximum of discussion on the points that matter, and the best employment of the available time, and that, I submit, would be assisted by some such scheme as this. I would emphasise what my hon. Friend said as to the effect on the country. I do not suppose there is any more trying vice in the case of individuals, and there is no vice against which we might all pray to be protected more earnestly, than that of taking ourselves as individuals seriously. We all hope our friends would warn us of it as soon as any sign became evident, but I think we would all agree that this
House would be lost if it did not take itself seriously, and that, unless it did take itself seriously, it could not feel surprised if it were not taken seriously by other people.
I would not have a word to say against this Resolution, however much one might dislike it, in ordinary days of party polemics. I recognise it very often has been, and very often may be, necessary, but I would point out with great respect that the times in which we live to-day are very different. There has been, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, no obstruction. There has been criticism, because we all have our differences of opinion; but there has been no obstruction. Really, the root of the trouble is inherent in our present situation. I do not blame the Government for it. While the Government is the victim and not the cause, I do suggest it is a matter in which all sections of opinion in the House are vitally concerned in finding the best way out, because the Government of today may be the Opposition of the day after to-morrow, and the Opposition of to-day may be the Government at some future time. Therefore, I would add, there is to my mind a wide difference in principle between a plan imposed upon the House by the Government and a plan devised by the House for its own greater advantage, and I do not think the Government would lose by it. I know of no assembly which is more reasonable, more fair-minded, and more generous than the House of Commons. I know of no Member of it who can act so persuasively upon it as my right hon. Friend, its Leader, and I do not think he really does sufficient credit to his own powers of persuasion in not being prepared to take the risk of making an appeal to it to find its own solution, and to abide by the common consent. I believe it would.
If some such attempt to make the House responsible for finding the best way out of its own difficulties were to be found acceptable, it would not, I think, be impossible for such a Committee to be established, and for it to win general assent, enabling us at once to get on with Supplementary Estimates to-day, for the Committee to report to-morrow, for the House to agree to abide by its general conclusions, and, so far from losing time, I think, we should gain more time to-day than we could possibly lose to-morrow.
And if it were done, it would afford a very valuable precedent for a great many other occasions. More and more we need in this House, as the way out of these routine difficulties, to develop co-operation, rather than to have a system of imposition by majority votes. I would welcome it, therefore, as establishing a precedent. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the names that have been suggested. If there are any other names which would commend more general acceptance, they would be perfectly acceptable to me. All I contend for is the principle that, if limitation is necessary, the House should decide it for itself. In so deciding we should besetting a precedent of great value, which would make for the much improved efficiency of this House and the more efficient conduct of its business.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The two hon. Members who have just spoken, not for the first time, I think, have shown an independence of spirit and a regard for the financial position of this House which do them very much credit in the face of a somewhat difficult position, which speeches of that kind always develop. I should have been very glad indeed if my right hon. Friend had seen his way to accept their proposals, because I do not think, as it has been put to us, it need have taken away a single hour of the discussion. If such a Committee could be set up at once and get to work at once, and in the meantime we could go on with Supplementary Estimates, their scheme would be in the hands of the Government, I should say, certainly by nine o'clock to-night. I can see no reason why that should not be done. However, the Leader of the House has intimated that, in his view, it is not a practicable proposal. Has he still an open mind on the question?

Mr. BON AR LAW: I am sorry to say I have not. If I thought it were practicable I should be delighted to say so.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I will pass on to make one or two comments, as Mr. Speaker has allowed us to do, on what is called the Second Reading of the Government's Resolution. It is just as well I am making a speech at this Box today, instead of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has not an entirely unblemished past. But I am certain everybody will agree, no matter what
his past has been, that Motions of this kind with regard to finance are of all kinds the most objectionable. Everybody has agreed, in season and out of season, in this House and out of it, during the past few months, in insisting on the duty of the House of Commons exercising its primary function, the control over finance. I notice that the Prime Minister, speaking at Sheffield, the other day, said:
The place to examine public expenditure is primarily the House of Commons. I trust the House of Commons will not do it vaguely, not by levelling wild, indefinite charges of extravagance, but by examining where the money is spent, making suggestions where savings can be effected, and listening to what is to be said for and against the Government Departments concerned.
What is the case for the Motion which is before the House? Primarily, I suppose, it is because of the ecclesiastical calendar.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The 31st March.

Sir D. MACLEAN: As regards the War Emergency Bill, I would say that it was not necessary to take that Bill, for this reason, that the measures comprised in that scheme need not have been renewed until after the declaration of peace. We are months off that yet, and if there were a chance of it coming on, nobody could blame the Government for dealing with it as an emergency matter. They would have had to press it through in a very short space of time supposing peace had come. There was no need to introduce so highly contentious a measure right in the midst of the time which, as they know, and we all know, was all too short for the finances which had to be got through before the House rose for the Easter Recess. As regards the time spent upon that measure, I am very glad to bear what the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen have said, and which has not been denied by any Member of the Government, that there has not been a shadow of obstruction in the proceedings of this House, either this Session or, indeed, I would say, last Session. It was a perfectly honest Debate all the way through.
It might really be useful to remind hon. Members as to what the Government's proposal really means. The Government propose, under this drastic scheme, to pass a huge sum of £28,432,000. That is on the top of Supplementary Estimates which the House granted before it rose of round about the figure of
£48,000,000. Those of use who have had any considerable experience of the House know that there is no more important Estimate laid before the House than a Supplementary Estimate. What does it imply? That there has been a miscalculation on the part of the Department concerned. There may be some good reason for it; some development may have rendered it utterly unexpected, but at any rate, it is a miscalculation. So far as I am able to observe in regard to the majority of those Estimates, the miscalculation is of a character which requires very close investigation. In addition, there are one or two Estimates which amount to new services. There is the Forestry Commission, an entirely new service, and a most important one. I do not think I should be wasting the time of the House if I remind hon. Members of one or two of the Votes.
There is Class 2, Vote 6, Colonial Office, and for oversea settlements. There is Vote 8, Board of Trade, special services arising out of the War, and including expenses of the Coal Controller, Export Credits Department and Reparation Claims Department. Then there is a very important matter, and, one that requires, I should have thought, very close investigation. I refer to the Investment in British Dyes, Limited, coming, as it does, on those Supplementary Estimates. There is the Department of Overseas Trade, which raises the question of temporary Vice-Consuls in Russia, another question of real importance. Take the Ministry of Agriculture. There is the Corn Production Act Expenses, a very great and justifiable measure, but it should be discussed. Then my right hon. Friend will understand with what sympathy I approach the next item, that is the law charges: increase of law officers' salaries and fees to bring them up to pre-War rate. This is a matter which ought to be discussed. I next come to Class 5, Vote 2, Colonial Services, Grants-in-Aid of Local Revenues.
This raises questions of Somaliland, East Africa, and Rhodesia. There is the emergency services in connection with the railway strike. I should hope we would not go very deeply into that. Then there is old age pensions. There is Class 7, Ministry of Health and the Scottish Board of Health; Grants-in-Aid and medical benefit. We had an announcement
the other day, and the country is entitled to know much more than you can get by means of question and answer. Vote 8A (Ministry of Transport), with £125,324 for salaries alone for three-fifths of the year, is an entirely new Estimate. I had a look this morning, in time I had at liberty, at some of these details, and I think some Votes require a whole evening to themselves to know what they mean and to have the Minister here to put questions to, so that we may get full and complete information on these most important topics. There is the bread subsidy, coal mines deficiency, export credits, and so on.
I have indicated, I think quite sufficiently to the House, and I hope to the country, as to the immensely important questions that lie immediately to hand. We all know that guillotine discussion unfortunately, to a very large extent, interferes with freedom of debate, and indeed anything like adequate expression and conduct of debate is paralysed by this machine. The whole thing deadens debate and reduces it to the level of commonplace interjections upon masters of high public importance. That has always been the case. I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate as to time or topic for the Government to introduce this most objectionable form of Parliamentary procedure. There are many questions where—I quite agree—the thing is very difficult indeed, and almost impossible to overcome. But I should indeed be glad if it were possible for the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend to be accepted; anyway, to prevent the guillotine on finance. I join heartily in what both my hon. Friends have said that it is of the deepest importance that we should get the House of Commons back again to its old position of regard and respect in the country. There is nothing the country hates so much, whatever be the reason for it internally, as closure of debate, especially on finance. I really think it would have been worth while trying if it could be done to set up the Committee suggested and by consent carry through this necessary financial business within the necessary limits of time; for a new start to be made. Really, after hearing what has been said I feel more strongly than ever we have got a question of principle. I appeal to the Government to give the House of Commons a chance,
trust us for this time. We will back you up right through, and I believe, a great step, a fresh departure will have been taken in our procedure which will bring back some of its former prestige to the House of Commons.

Sir R. COOPER: I am quite in sympathy with the argument of my two hon. Friends who put forward the Amendment. It is particularly unfortunate that circumstances compel the Government to bring in this drastic closure because whilst hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the front benches have the usual opportunity of expressing their views on the various Votes that come before us, the ordinary back bencher in this House, it must be recognised, is really practically altogether excluded from taking any part in the debate on these Votes I feel the matter particularly, because I am one of several who constantly in the country express the opinion that there is a great deal of unnecessary extravagance at the present time on the part of the Government. For my part I do not feel that any of us is justified in doing that unless, when the opportunity comes in this House, we are straightforward enough to tackle the Government on that opportunity. I do not quite follow how my hon. Friends think that their Amendment is going to help us at the present time. There is no Committee of the House that can possibly add to the number of days between now and March 25th. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, they can."] I do not know how it can be done. It seems to me that their only hope must be to submit a closure table which will be closure by private Members in place of closure by the Government.
What the House really wants to attain, if possible, in the short time that it is allotted to the various Votes, is that every Member who wishes to speak should take up the minimum time possible in putting his points, and so allow a larger number of Members to speak. Just one point before resuming my seat. If we look at facts in the face it is quite obvious that we are going to be in exactly the same position this time next year. The matter is one which ought not to rest where it is. The Government ought to take some steps at an early date to advise means by which in future we may be given a full and fair opportunity of bringing forward points of criticism and arguments against
the Government on each of the various items which we desire to discuss.

Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and deavours to prove that the Government were not to blame. I do not quite agree with him. Let us consider for a moment what has taken place since the House met on February 10th. I quite agree' that it would not have been wise to ask the House to meet earlier than February 10th in view of the great demand upon their labours which the Government made last year. I think there the Government did the right thing. Having met, however, how is it that we have got into this stated The Address, the House will remember, was finished within the week—a much shorter time than usual—I am speaking now, not of war-time but of pre-war days. It is not correct to say the discussion was limited on the Address. The Leader of the House referred to the War Emergency Kill. But whose fault was it that was dealt with? It was entirely the fault of the Government. Why did they introduce a complicated measure which was absolutely certain to raise considerable discussion in the House? Why could they not have brought a measure in in something like the form in which it was passed the other day? This measure was brought in as long ago as August Bank Holiday. It has taken all the time between last August and a few days ago to pass it. Why? It is entirely the fault of the Government. They brought in—if I may respectfully say so—an absurd measure, which no respecting House of Commons could possibly pass without very serious amendment.
5.0 P.M.
It was an attempt to alter the general law of the land. Fortunately, there were a number of people who were cute enough to find that out, but it took a considerable amount of trouble to induce the Attorney-General to forego those alterations. It was quite absurd to suppose that, in a Bill of this sort, an alteration of the general law would be allowed, and therefore that point entirely falls to the ground. That being so, the Government must have known that there was to be a certain amount of discussion on this Bill. There was no obstruction this Session. What question is it that interests the country most at the present moment? It is undoubtedly the question of expenditure
I do not say whether the Government is extravagant or whether it is not, but the question of expenditure undoubtedly does interest the country above everything at the present moment. Now we have been asked to pass Supplementary Votes numbering—I endeavoured to count them just now—between 60 and 70, amounting to an expenditure of £28,000,000, on the top of an expenditure of £37,000,000. We are asked to pass all these Votes in how many days? We have had one whole day and two half days. That makes two whole days. During that time we have passed nine or eleven Votes, leaving 51 Votes amounting to over £27,000,000 to be passed now. How are those 61 Votes going to be passed? Supposing they are taken to-morrow; there will be something like four hours in which to pass those 51 Votes, involving an expenditure of something like £27,000, OCO. I think some little time ago that somebody said that I was rather suspicious by nature. I do not know if I am, but I cannot help being a little suspicious as to the real reason why this Motion has been brought forward. It was only brought forward all of a sudden last Friday. What took place on those two half days during which we discussed those supplementary estimates? The Government had to make alterations in their programme. Are the Government afraid that further alterations may be made in their programme if the House is allowed unlimited discussion on the remaining Votes, and is it in order to avoid that that they are bringing in this guillotine? So, is the Motion brought forward really on account of the shortness of time?
Now let us deal with the plea of shortness of time. The Government have left three private Members' evenings—Tuesday, Wednesday and one other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Four!"] Well, four. Why should that be? I do not know that the subjects that are to be brought forward are so much more important than the discussion of the expenditure of the nation that the House should give up these four evenings to avoid discussing the Estimates in order that these abstract Motions may be discussed. I was myself surprised, at the beginning of the session, in view of the fact that Easter comes early and that certain things had to be done before March 31st, that the Government did not take all the
time of the House, or, at any rate, all Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons and evenings. But they did not do it. Having made that mistake there is no earthly reason that I can see why they should not take the evenings on these four days that I have mentioned. This would give considerably more time. Then there is a question of the Friday and of my Bill. My answer is, that in view of what I consider to be the very great importance, at the present moment, of discussing finance, that I would give up my Bill without any hesitation. I should be sorry to do so, but I should do it because I think that the financial state of the nation is a more important matter. I do not doubt that other hon. Members would do the same thing if they were asked, but they have never been asked. Why not have a table? Why not say that on such-and-such a day all the remaining outstanding Votes shall be put? I do hot say that is a good thing to do, but it is far better than the way the Government propose.
Then there comes the question of whether or not it is a good thing that this Committee should be set up I think the Leader of the House said that all the Members who were suggested as being proper people to act on it had strong views. Weil, if you are going merely to put on an automaton who will act when the strings are pulled behind him, you do not gain much. I should have thought that if you put on this Committee men with strong opinions you would be likely to come quickly to a decision. I would point out to the Leader of the House that any of those names can be altered. It will be quite possible for him when each name is called out to divide on any name and to substitute another. There is another point which ought not to be forgotten, and that is, how is it that these Supplementary Estimates have arisen? During all the years that I have taken any interest in financial questions in this House the very first thing that was always said by all Oppositions—I am not at all sure that I have not heard the Leader of the House say himself that it was a wise thing to say—" How is it that there has been all this miscalculation?" If there is anything that shows the incompetency of a Department it is that they cannot estimate their expenditure properly, and if you have a
Department which exceeds its estimate of expenditure by 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. it only shows gross incompetency on the part of the Department. During the War, of course, we had no estimates. Things occurred and possibly direct calculations could not be made. But we are not at war now. It is nearly one and a half years since the Armistice was signed, and by now we ought to have had accurate estimates put before the House.
There is only one reason why there should be all this hurry. It must be remembered that the only thing that goes to the House of Lords is the Consolidated Fund Bill. A couple of days would be quite sufficient for that. Here I must disagree with the Amendment. I think the date should be the 31st March and not the 25th. [HON MEMBERS: "The 30th!"] If it went to the House of Lords on the 28th that would give them three days. We have not got the Motion yet, But why cannot we have until the 30th or 31st? Because we must give two days for the Home Rule Bill. I believe that the last Home Rule Bill is still on the Statute Book. I think it was put on the Statute Book on the celebrated occasion when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) lead us out of the House. I think I was sitting behind him on that occasion, when he denounced the whole practice and requested us to follow him out of the House. We walked out after him. The Liberal Party were then in power and were sitting on this side of the House. Six years have passed since then and it cannot make the slightest difference whether the second reading of the new Home Rule Bill is taken on the 28th or 29th of March or on the 8th or 9th of April. I think a week's holiday at Easter would be plenty. It would be much better to have a longer time at Whitsuntide. There was not so much importance attached to the first reading of this Home Rule Bill. I have seen three Home Rule Bills in this House. In 1893 on the first reading we had chairs all down the gangway. In these circumstances there appears to be an alliance between myself and the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) for the first and only time, in agreeing that the Home Rule Bill is rather a bad Bill and that there is no hurry for it. I think there is no reason why it should not be postponed. Under these circumstances, unless the Government are prepared to make considerable
alterations in their time-table I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. A DAMSON: By his Motion the Leader of the House seeks to curtail one of the most important privileges that hon. Members have. In putting forward such a Motion this afternoon the Government have not even the excuse of any undue obstruction having taken place so far as their time in concerned. I would point out to the Leader of the House that is is very little consolation to hon. Members for him to tell us that this is the first time that he has proposed such a Motion. This is a matter of such grave importance to the House that there is no consolation in any such statement being put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. Not only is the House itself interested in retaining the privilege of fully discussing Estimates, but the country expects that hon. Members will take advantage of their privilege to the fullest extent, with the view of seeing if the money is spent wisely and well. This Motion is, in my view, put forward by the Government at a very unfortunate time.
In many parts of the world Parliamentary government is on its trial. I do not think the House and the Government recognise to the full extent the manner in which it is on its trial. If it did so, I feel sure that the Government would not have come so lightly to the House and have asked, by the Motion tabled by the Leader, for this retrenchment of the privileges of hen. Members on the Estimate. The closuring of Supply in such a manner is, to my mind, a very dangerous thing. It could have been avoided, I think, if the Government had not been in such a hurry to introduce the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill. That was a measure which many Members of the House thought there was no necessity for at all. As we have been reminded by the Leader of the House, five days were occupied in discussing it, and those five days could have been very profitably spent in debating Supply.
There was another way in which the Government could have avoided the difficulty in which they have placed Members of the House this afternoon. They could have called the House together earlier. The Leader of the House stated that Members were entitled to as lengthened a holiday as could be provided. That is
true, but I do not think Members of the House would have enjoyed the holiday to the extent they did had they known that the price to be paid for the extended holiday was the closuring of Debate on Supply. I think the Leader of the House will be well advised to give serious consideration to the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not moan to say that the Amendment should be accepted in its entirety. What I do suggest to the Leader of the House is that the principle of the Amendment should be accepted, on the understanding that the Members of the Committee be selected by the Whips of the various parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] At any rate I think that is the manner in which it ought to be done. I do not-think the Committee should be selected in the way provided for in the Amendment. I do not know whether what I have said meets the views of the Mover of the Amendment, but I do seriously suggest to the Leader of the House; that he accept the Amendment, with a proviso that the selection of the Committee be arranged between the Government and the Whips of the respective parties.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The prophecy to which I ventured to give utterance at the beginning of this Debate, that there would be inevitable rebukes of the Government for mismanagement, so far has only been fulfilled in the speech of my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir F. Banbury). I am not going to deal with the criticism directed against the Government, because I am about to make a proposal in an endeavour to meet the views which have been expressed by so may Members of the House in connection with this Amendment. Let me say at the outset I had not understood the purport of my hon. Friend's Amendment, until I had read it closely, and I did not realise that a part of his proposal was that there should be no Closure Divisions, but that a. Committee should allocate the time instead of the Government itself doing so. A proposal of this nature has everything to commend it, if only the House will agree to it. I agree with every word which has been said about the disadvantage of Closure Resolutions. The Closure is bad enough on a Bill, but it is very much worse when used on the Estimates. How is the proposal of my hon. Friend to be carried out? It assumes the complete acquiescence
of the House of Commons in the whole of the arrangement come to. Suppose this Committee meets and makes a report as to the way in which the time shall be allocated. It might be possible for some Member of the House to talk the business out, and that would throw over entirely the business arrangement for the day, as obviously it is inconceivable that I should ask Mr. Speaker for the closure on some Vote which has not been discussed at all. Therefore the House will see that this entirely depends on the complete acquiescence of the House as a whole with the arrangement made.
I have had much experience in this House and my right hon. Friend opposite has had still longer experience. I have seen many of these Parliamentary bargains and I have never known one to be broken in any way. I am therefore certain if all Members of the House agree to an arrangement of this kind we need not be afraid that it will not be carried out. But this is not like an ordinary suggestion. It must be remembered that if it is not carried out in the time fixed we shall break the law, and that is a risk which we cannot take. As there is a fairly large number of Members in the House at the moment I will state that the proposal is that a Committee, as far as possible representative of all sections of the House, should make arrangements with regard to the necessary financial business, so as to get it finished by the 25th March. That is really essential. It is further proposed that this Committee should set to work at once and, before11 o'clock, the time of adjournment to-night, its proposals should be available for the whole House, and the Parliamentary bargain now made should then be confirmed and a definite time stated at which the business is to be taken with the consent of the House, thereby carrying the arrangement right through. Speaking not as a Member of the Government, but as a Member of the House itself, I suggest that to adopt this course would set a precedent which will be of immense value to future Parliamentary procedure. It would make it more difficult for either this or any other Government to move the Closure again, and I really think the House would be well advised if it starts on this course. A procedure something like this was adopted on a previous occasion, which enabled financial
of a very pressing nature to be carried through in two days. What I ask the House to do is to adopt the principle of the Amendment. As regards the Committee my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) says he would not like to take the names exactly as they stand. But I do not think that matters very much. I do not propose that there should be any formal resolution about setting up the Committee, but I do propose that a Committee should be set up right away in an informal way to carry out this informal but binding obligation on the part of the House. There are sections of the House of Commons which must be allowed to have some say in the matter. I propose that my hon. Friend who moved and seconded this Amendment should be consulted as to the selection of the Committee and, pending the Report of the Committee, we should go on with the Supplementary Estimates. It will be necessary to move a part of the Resolution standing in my name and also part of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Peebles.

Mr. ADAMSON: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that?

Mr. BONAR LAW: If we are to have the additional time which the House obviously desires us to take in the shape of private Members' time, in the case of those who have secured their opportunities under the ballot, and to give them in exchange certain evenings after Easter, in substitution for those taken away now, we must have a Resolution to that effect.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham now before the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a formal Resolution. What I am proposing is that there should be no formal Resolution but that this Committee should be set up to carry out the wishes of the House, and that at 11 o'clock the House should confirm the parliamentary bargain by agreeing to the times suggested by the Committee.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): We need to be rather careful I think as to the way in which we are proceeding. It will be necessary before anything else is done that the present Amendment and Motion should be withdrawn. Then, in my view, it will be
in the power of the Leader of the House to move separate sections of the Motion, as for instance, the one about private Members' time. I would venture to suggest also that the third paragraph which deals with private business might be desirable in the interests of the House. Private, business at 8.15 should be dealt with after the conclusion of Government Business.

Lord R. CECIL: Surely the best plan would be to appoint the Committee immediately—I do not care whether it is done formally or informally—let them draw up their scheme and let it be moved formally at the beginning of to-morrow's Sitting and come immediately into operation. Then we shall know exactly what we are doing. To try to settle now exactly which part of his Motion he wants to move and which he does not, will almost certainly lead to ultimate confusion, and it will le better to do that to-morrow when we shall have an opportunity of considering the matter. I recognise that there is an atmosphere of agreement, and anyone who makes a further suggestion will not be regarded with great popularity, but I suggest that this informal Committee should also have the power to say whether or not these days before Easter are to be given to the Home Rule Bill [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] If the Government will not agree to it they will not, but I think that is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I can quite understand the difficulty of the Government in making a proposal of that kind, but it might be made by a Committee representing the whole House. I feel very strongly that, whether this is done by the Committee or by the Government, it will expose the whole House inevitably to grave criticism outside. I am not making any attack on the Government. I am not saying it is their fault or it is not that we are in this position, but in the state of feeling in the country the impression that large Estimates are going to be hurried through the House without discussion will undoubtedly produce a very unfortunate effect. That is a fact which everyone who has been about the country will confirm me in. It would be alleviated if the Government or the Committee could devise some plan by which those subjects which are excluded from discussion now could be discussed at a later period of the Session. If it could be understood that in some way or
other every subject of importance which would come before the House for discussion but for the difficulties of time, will, nevertheless, be discussed later on, that would be a complete answer to the proposition that the House of Commons. is conspiring with the Government in order to avoid discussion of the Estimates. That is a charge which will undoubtedly be made and will be believed by a large number of people.
I strongly urge on the Government that it should make some statement of that kind to show that there is no ground for the suggestion that this is an effort to avoid discussion. I adhere to my view that in the circumstances it is quite unreasonable to insist on taking the Home Rule Bill before Easter. In view of the cry about economy and the control of finance, to postpone the discussion of the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill for ten days is a very small considration compared with the obtaining of two or three more days of careful discussion of these very important Estimates.

Mr. ASQUITH: I ask the House to assent to what seems to me the very reasonable proposal which has been made on behalf of the Government. I have, I suppose, as black a record as any man now living as the prolific parent of guillotine Resolutions. When I read on the Paper to-day the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, I recognised it as, I will not say an improvement or a development, but as at any rate a well-grown specimen of the breed. It has this, I will not say peculiar or wholly novel or exceptional feature, that it is applied not to legislation, but to finance. I remember well, for I was a Member of the Government at the time, the incident which my right hon. Friend has referred to as far back as the end of 1893 or the beginning of 1914, and the then Leader of the Opposition, now Lord President of the Council, who was not sparing in those days in dialetical courage, or as some of us thought dialetical audacity, and therefore not disposed to extend anything in the nature of weak or exceptional indulgence to demands made by the Government, assented, and I think with the universal approbation of the House, to what was really a far more drastic dealing with finance than anything even that is now proposed. I have been responsible probably for more closure and guillotine Resolutions than any man now sitting
within these walls. I have always regretted it. I have always thought it was a necessity, when it was a necessity, to be faced with reluctance and to be repeated with economy. But it has to be done. The financial situation is such that a certain number of these Votes must be taken before the expiration of the financial year. What is novel to me, and I think to everyone, in the proposal now made is that the allocation of time, and I hope to some extent of subjects, because I agree that if we pass over in these block Votes a number of highly-important items of expenditure without adequate discussion or in some cases without discussion at all, it ought to be upon the under-standing and with the assurance, which I am sure the Government is prepared to give, that at a later period of the Session the subjects so passed over will have a reasonable opportunity of being presented for debate—the novelty of the proposal consists in its adoption of an expedient which in my very long Parliamentary experience I have become increasingly favourable to, that the responsibility in this matter should not rest exclusively and invidiously upon the shoulders of the Executive, but should be shared by the House of Commons.
After all, we are first and foremost here as Members of Parliament. We shift from time to time from side to side, and many of us say things in Opposition to which, when we are in office, we should perhaps be glad to apply the sponge of oblivion, and sometimes when we are in office we say things which, when we get into Opposition, we should be equally prepared, I will not say to recant, but not to repeat again. I regard as of very great importance the precedent which I am very glad to see set, that an independent Committee of the House should have the primary and, indeed, the determining voice in the allocation of our time in regard to matters of this kind, and in particular in regard to matters of finance. After all, among the many functions of this House it is impossible to allocate precisely their relative importance, but I believe we all ought to agree that the first and foremost duty of the House, as representing the people of the country, is to have the freest and fullest debates on financial matters. I am, therefore, very glad on my return here, in the very first week, to find this new precedent. I
believe it is capable of large and beneficial extension, and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Hills) is entitled to gratitude for the effort which he has made and, what is to me as an old Parliamentarian, the surprising amount of general acceptance which it has met in every quarter of the House. It would be a very great pity if we were to boggle over technicalities of procedure in the matter. The Whips can be relied upon to constitute a Committee which would command general confidence. My right hon. Friend's suggestion is that the Parliamentary bargain—and, as he says, a Parliamentary bargain once made is never in his experience and never has been in mine violated—should be ratified as it can easily be on the Motion for the Adjournment at the close of our preceedings to-night, and in the meantime we shall have saved the whole of this evening for the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates. I very earnestly hope that the House, without perhaps any further expenditure of time, will agree to the proposal.

Major HILLS: In asking leave to withdraw my Motion, I think I ought first of all to congratulate our new Member on his maiden speech and express our great pleasure in contrast to some speeches we have heard on the same subject from him. Secondly, I want to thank my right hon. Friend most sincerely for what he has done. I am sure he has done a wise thing, and from the point of view of the Government one of very far-reaching benefit to the House, and now that he has discharged his part of the bargain it is up to the House of Commons to fulfil theirs.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This guillotine closure Resolution differs from all previous ones which have been brought before the House. Previous Resolutions have been debated by the two parties representing the Government and the Opposition and have been a matter of Party conflict, but on this occasion the Government of the day, by its Closure Resolution and by the acceptance of this Amendment, is bringing Parliament up against the people of the country outside who are more moved than they have been at any time in the past at the extravagance that is going on. It is a question of this House against the people of the country. There is not a Member present
to-day who has not had countless communications from his constituents urging that he should restrain the extravagance of the Government. It is a question now of the House against the country, and the country has a perfect right to say that the £56,000,000 of additional expenditure should not be voted without sufficient discussion. There has never been Supplementary Estimates like these before. The paltry time that is to be allocated for the discussion of these enormous Votes is utterly unworthy of the expenditure and the waste that is going on.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Put him on the Committee!"]—It is not a question of the composition of the Committee. It is a question of sufficient time for discussion. There is nothing more important than that we should get sufficient time. The Noble Lord has proposed that we shall have these two extra days that are going to be allotted for Home Rule. The suggestion has also been made that we should reduce the holiday. Both these proposals could be combined by the House coming back two days earlier, and we could then have the Home Rule Bill and have two days for the discussion of extravagance. We have in these Estimates enormous grants to the canal companies, and enormous grants-in-aid to the different Colonics. Every sort of extravagance is embodied in these Estimates, and the Committee which is to be set up is to divide up two and a half days in order that £50,000,000 of expenditure can be scamped. I welcome the suggestion that it should be a Committee of this House that should in future draw up the question as to where the guillotine should fall. There is no harm in that. We should all gladly obey the ruling of that Committee, and assent to its views, provided that the time allowed was sufficient. The time under this scheme is insufficient. It would be ridiculous to discuss in two and a half days that which is moving the country more than anything else. In these Supplementary Estimates you get the bread subsidy, enormous grants to the Board of Agriculture, and you get the Forestry waste. You also get the grant to Rhodesia. I hope the Committee will give us an opportunity to discuss the grant to Rhodesia. All these subjects are lumped
together in these Estimates, and unless you take the opportunity of discussing this extravagance now we shall not only get no further opportunity this year, but we shall have forfeited the right to the confidence of our constituents.

Colonel BURN: This is all a matter of time, and I would suggest that we might sit on Saturday. I can see no reason why we should not sit on Saturday. We are sent here as representatives of our constituents, and this financial question is one in which they are deeply interested. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not sit on Saturday in order to get the extra time for discussion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It will be necessary to negative the Amendment, in order that the Motion may be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is necessary for me, formally to withdraw the Resolution which stands in my name, and I now ask leave to do so. I think the suggestion that has been put forward is a good one, and instead of moving the Motion now, the best course would be to put it down to be taken as the first Order whenever the Motion is necessary. In asking leave to withdraw the Motion, I should like to be allowed to say that I am greatly delighted that the House has come to this decision, and I hope it will have far-reaching effects on our future conduct in this House. I should like, also, to say something else, but there is naturally some delicacy in saying it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) mentioned that he had had something to do with such Resolutions in the past. In an attempt to be moderately prepared, I have here a very large list of quotations from him in case he had taken a different line. But that is not where the delicacy comes in. It is this. I did my best as a Member of the Government to prevent someone coming in here who was going to oppose us, but I hope my right hon. Friend and the House will feel that I am not insincere in saying that, in spite of having done what I considered to be my duty in taking that attitude, it is to me a great pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend again.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1919–20.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £10, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs including the Foreign Claims Office, Foreign Trade Department, War Trade Statistical Department, and News Department.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Foreign Office (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood) sets such a good example that it is with the greater reluctance that I press him on the point which was raised last Thursday in regard to the system of passports and visés. Some of us on that occasion suggested that the Government should do everything in their power to abolish the visé system. We pointed out that it was a war-time restriction on freedom of travel and that so far as we were aware there was no necessity for it even under the Aliens Act, and we suggested that the Government should make representations to foreign governments in order to abolish the system as soon as possible. I hope he will not adopt the non possumus, adamant attitude that he adopted last Thursday. The right hon. Member for the Camborne division (Mr. Acland) asked him to take away from the Debate the impression that there was a sincere desire on the part of this House to bring this system to an end. I believe there is that sincere desire, and I hope he will be able to inform us that the Government will do what lies in their power to bring it to an end, and that they will approach foreign governments with a view to the abolition of the visé system as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to reinforce the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member. I heard with great deal of astonishment on Thursday from the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Hamar Greenwood) that we kept this system on because the United States Government insisted upon it.

The ADDITIONAL UNDER-SECRE TARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. I understood that, and also that the United States Government are as keen as we are on keeping this system going. During the week-end I had a conversation with an American gentleman who travels a great deal, and he said, "We have the same complaint in the States. We are told that it is the English Government that insists on this system being kept on." No doubt if I spoke to softie of my French friends they would say the same thing. After the expressions of opinion from all parts of the House I hope we may have some assurance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is going to press this view upon the Cabinet. The country is very much annoyed at what they consider to be these unnecessary restrictions. Business men going abroad in the interests of the trade of the country are hampered and woried by having to get these visés. Let them carry their passports if necessary for the next few months, but do get rid of the visé system. and the country will gain and not suffer by it. As for the other reason that was given, that it is necessary to keep on this system because of the Aliens Act, I cannot see how that argument applies. We had an Aliens Restriction Act before the War, and there were restrictions on aliens coming into the country. That Act was exercised quite efficiently, as every fair-minded person will admit, and I do not see why we should be condemned all our lives to this visé system for the sake of keeping a few Germans out of this country. We used to be told in our youth that any Russian under the Tzarist regime consisted of three elements—body, soul and passport. That was a great joke and we laughed at it and thanked our stars that we were born in free England. Let us get rid of that indeterminate part of our body, the visé on our passport. It is quite useless for keeping out people you want to keep out, because there is nothing easier than to get forged passports and forged visés and to come into this country if you know the way to do it.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. DEVLIN: I would not have intervened if it had not been for the dissent
that was physically expressed by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Hamar Greenwood) when my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) stated that the excuse given by the Government was that the continuance of this system was due to the fault of the American Government. The hon. and gallant. Member dissents again. I always like to convict this Government out of their own mouths. I have repeatedly written on behalf of persons anxious to go to America who complained of difficulty in regard to these visés, and the answer I have invariably got has been that it was the fault of the American Government and not the fault of the British Department dealing with the question. Therefore, I cannot see how the hon. and gallant Member can dissent from the view put forward—I associate myself with the protest which has been made. The whole thing is a humbug and a fraud. It does not keep people out of America who want to get there. The wrong people, if they want to get there, can go. This is another of the irritations which make people very angry, which are caused by these restrictive administrative Acts. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman as he is now disposed to blame other Governments, will get up and say that the question has been solved by the withdrawal of the necessity for the issue of these visés.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I invited the hon. and gallant Gentleman to go to Paris without his white passport and travel with an ordinary passport for a change, and see what it is like. I am afraid that he has not followed my advice. It is so easy for a Member of the Government to take a white passport and travel in comfort, that he does not realise what the ordinary traveller has to put up with. The ordinary traveller who crosses the Channel spends at least one hour, and probably two, packed like a sardine, on each side of the Channel, in order to have his visé examined. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have crossed quite recently, and that is my experience; first on leaving England, and then on arriving in France. I crossed from Southampton to le Havre, and the examinations both on this side and that were interminable. That is going on perpetually. That all arises from the fact that different governments persist in having a visé before anybody is allowed
to enter their country. It is easy for the hon. and gallant Member to say that we do not require a visé on any British subject coming into this country. Of course he does not, but he requires a visé on the passport of every foreigner coming into this country. Naturally, so long as we require a visé on the passport of every foreigner coming into England, so long will foreign countries require a visé on the passport of the British subject who goes abroad to any country.
If we were the first to abolish the custom of requiring a visé on the passport of every foreigner coming into England, the other countries would follow suit, and travelling would got back to the old comfortable conditions which prevailed before the war. At present this is doing most harm in America, because nothing puts an American's back up more than being treated in England as though he were a foreigner and badgered about from pillar to post with passport Regulations. I am certain that the abolition of the visé system for us would be one of those little things which would make the relationship of ourselves and America infinitely better than it is at the present time. There is a large body of people in this country who believe that the passport system is kept on in its present complexity to continue to provide jobs for passport officers, and while we are complaining about waste we have these unnecessary departments making things difficult for the Englishman who has to travel on commercial business abroad. Personally I always found the passport officers extremely civil and very helpful, but when you are a foreigner you often find very different conditions.
The case of Madam Litvinoff is one which has done this country no end of harm. Mr. Litvinoff was allowed to come to Stockholm to meet our representatives. Obviously if anything was to become of these negotiations, things should be made as comfortable for him as possible without committing the country to a step of which it might not approve. Madame Litvinoff wanted to go from here with her child to Stockholm to visit him. She is an English born woman and merely wished to see her husband after being separated from him for 18 months. The passports office hung up the matter for 14 days-most of the time Mr. Litvinoff was in Stockholm—before Madam Litvinoff was
allowed to go. That sort of conduct can do no possible good. It makes it much more difficult to deal with a foreigner if his wife is not treated properly in her own country. A little action of that sort by the passport office does more harm than you can possibly do good by keeping out undesirable aliens from this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that we must continue to have passports for every foreigner coming to England, visés because there is no other way of carrying out the Aliens Act. How was the Aliens Act carried out before the War? These visés were not necessary then and apparently they are necessary now only because we have established a vested interest in a large number of passport offices and clerks and must keep the system going. I ask the Committee to register a Vote against the way in which our passport system is most extravagant and is mediæval in character.

Mr. ACLAND: It may help the Committee if one makes a distinction between a passport system and a irisé system. I do not think that any foreign government would be suspicious of anyone travelling from England, purporting to be a British subject, with his photograph on his passport. Anyone for instance who takes a Cook's ticket and is a British subject can get a passport through Cook's. I think that you pay something like 6s. for it and hand in a form of application which has to be signed by a Justice of the Peace or a Minister of religion or somebody like that. So that there is very little difficulty in a British subject who wants to travel in a foreign country providing himself with a British passport. If a foreign government wants to object to a British subject it has got to look beyond the passport. That cannot be the real guarantee that we are only allowing out of our country at the present time persons who have a proper and adequate reason for going out of this country.
Before the war a few people took out passports in case they got to some place where they might be useful. Generally the way you were treated by officials and so on in other countries depended on who you were and not on the accident of whether you happened to have a British passport or not. That did not guarantee you anything special in the way of treatment or consideration, but it seems to me that in this matter of passports our hands may
be tied by the Aliens Act which we passed last year. I think that it is a great pity. Some of us did our best against it when it was before the House, but under that Act we have required aliens wanting to come into this country to be provided with passports from the country in which they come and we wish to examine those passports. If that is so it is very difficult for us to say, "Let us now ask other countries to let us go into their territory without being provided with passports on our side." I think that it is unfortunate that in this matter of passports we are tied by the legislation of last session, and I hope that the Government will consider it with a view, perhaps not this year but later on, to a revision of that legislation so that in time we may get back to the old principle of not bothering about these paper identifications, which after all are very little guarantee, of the people getting about.

The question of visé is different. What happens now is this. A person wants to go to Switzerland; he gets a passport through Cook's. That is simple enough. Then he provides himself for some curious reason with six photographs of himself and five of his wife if she is going to travel with him. Then he has to visit two places in London, to get the visé of the French Consulate and the Swiss Consulate. It has to be in a certain order. If he goes to the French Consulate before going to the Swiss Consulate that is no good. When I was going to Switzerland I waited at the French Consulate for several hours in December on a cold morning before I finally reached the sacred room, and I was then told that I must go to the Swiss Consulate first. It was necessary to go to the Swiss Consulate between certain hours. I could not go between these hours, but the Commissionaire at the Consulate happened to be a West Countryman coming from the same parish as myself, and but for that fact I might have been waiting at the doorstep still.

That is a very vexatious proceeding, and there is this little pinprick in it, that when you have to pay 10 francs on your French visé you must do it at the pre-war rate of exchange, which was 25 francs to the £, and you have to pay BE. instead of 4s., which is all the French Government is justified in asking you to pay. But that system could be modified by common consent. Is it really necessary for us that before foreigners
come to this country they should obtain the visé of the British Consulate in the foreign country? Because if we do not require that then we have something definite to go on. We would be able to say to foreign countries, "We are willing to take your people without requiring a visé of our Consulation the passport, and therefore we suggest that you should take our people without requiring the visé of your officials on their passports." That is the vexatious thing which must be got rid of. But as long as we say no foreigner can come here, say from Switzerland, without having a visé of the British Consul at Geneva, or Berne, or some place of the kind, so long as it is a thing which produces revenue—the hon. Gentleman said that the revenue produced by the passport system paid the War bonus of the Foreign Office and certain other expenses of the messengers—so long shall we be plagued by having to obtain a visé from foreign Consulates. Even if on the present legislation we are bound to the passport system, cannot my bon. and gallant Friend, by mutual arrangement, do away with this very vexatious system of visé?

Mr. T. SHAW: I have had the unfor-tunate experience of dancing attendance for seven weeks on a foreign Consul and of being unable at the end to got my visé. That made it absolutely impossible for me to keep my engagement on the Continent. The humbug of this visé system is patent to all who have had to deal with it, particularly since the War. On behalf of those who, like myself, have to visit the Continent, I want to appeal as strongly as I can to the Foreign Office to abolish the visé system. There may be some reason for a passport, but I can see nothing that a visé can give that a passport does not give. The visé in itself is the principal cause of discomfort and of delay to the travelling public. I think that almost everyone who has travelled on the Continent since the War will agree that the greatest difficulty is experienced with this visé system. I had undertaken to meet representatives from different nations throughout Europe to discuss matters connected with the textile trade, but I had to cancel the arrangement because I could not get my visé through. Business relationships are seriously handicapped by the system.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have listened with great interest to this Debate. I want to clear up at once one misconception in the minds of several hon. Members. The British Government neither issue passports nor impress visés on the documents of foreigners leaving this country. Americans and all other foreigners, as far as the Government are concerned, are free to go from these islands wherever they will. Foreign countries, however, and, indeed, the countries of these departing foreigners, will not allow these ladies or gentlemen to land unless a Consular officer of the foreign country to which the foreigner is going has viséed his passport.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Those foreigners have to get our visés before they can get into this country.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That Is another question. We must start this discussion somewhere, and I am starting at another point.

Mr. DEVLIN: How long is it since this arrangement was made; because I know a ease of American ladies who came over to see dying relatives, and there was the greatest possible difficulty in getting these visés.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: From whom?

Mr. DEVLIN: From you, from your Department. I have known of a dozen or twenty of these cases.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am more than sorry if my hon. Friend has had any difficulty, especially in the case of a person on such a sad errand; but I cannot imagine where the difficulty comes in since the War. During the War there was a very stringent system for dealing with people coming into and going out of this country, but certainly for a long time past no foreigner has been stopped by the British authorities from going home. Thousands were here before the War, and before the present passport system was set up. I want to clear up the point made by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) for anything affecting America and our relations with America is important. There is not the slightest inconvenience imposed on, or any regulation dealing with, departing Americans or foreigners. All countries in the world insist upon examining incoming passengers,
and the incoming passenger, for his own security and on his own behalf, travels with a document issued by his representative in the country of his departure I will give the case of an American who has resided here, say, for 20 years. He wishes to visit the home of his fathers in the United States. He does not bother any British authorities. He goes to his Consul-General. We put no troubles in his way. Let me clear up another impression. This country is the pioneer in freedom in the matter of passports and visés. British subjects in all parts of the world require no visé from a British authority to come back to England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales. The visé is abolished as far as the British Consular Officer abroad is concerned. Arrangements have been made with the French and United States Governments whereby British subjects can now obtain visés to enable them to travel to and fro, and negotiations with the Swiss Government are proceeding on similar lines. His Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into similar arrangements with other Governments. That does away with a good deal of the criticism I have heard.
This passport system has changed entirely during the past year, Hon. Members who travelled abroad just after the Armistice may have found great difficulty, but if they travel now they will be given facilities as far as passports are concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne was incorrect in one of his statements. There are about 15,000 passports issued every day. About 14,000 of them are issued within 24 hours of the application and 300 are issued as urgent cases within an hour of their presentation. There is much talk, not in this House, but outside, about bureaucracy, I should like to know what business firm would do things better than that. There; are every day about 100 passport applications that have to be examined much more carefully, generally for reasons of negligence. For instance, a man puts his wife's photo on his own passport form, or by some other act of negligence makes ft impossible for his passport to be dealt with promptly. I submit that the system is now much improved. At the same time it enables us to maintain control of alien immigration. Every country insists upon checking the persons coming into that
country. In that respect I submit that we still remain the freest country in the world. It is practically impossible efficiently to administer the Aliens Act of last year unless you have a passport system, that is to say, unless you have British subjects in possession of a British passport and unless the alien coming to these shores has his alien passport visé by the Consular or Passport Control Officer in the country of his nationality from which he departs. Under the Aliens Act every person coming to this country must be examined as to his nationality. That is the law. Do not blame the Foreign Office for administering the law.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Blame the Government.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has his own way of dealing with Governments I sometimes envy him his freedom. The Foreign Office is compelled to administer the law and to help the Home Office, which is particularly responsible in dealing with the Aliens Act. When an alien departs from some country, he gets a passport from his own local authority and this is visé by a British Consular Officer or British Passport Control Officer who, living in the country of the departing alien, can alone visé with authority and knowledge the document that is essential for that alien to enter this Kingdom. It is not possible, as far as I can see at the moment, though I hall consider this Question, to avoid insisting upon the visé on an alien passport being impressed in the country of departure. A passport now can be made valid in more than one country, and the holder can travel about within the period for which the passport is valid, which in this case is two years.
I can conclude only by assuring hon. Members who have spoken that everything possible has been done, and will be done, to make the issue of these passports and the visés of passports in foreign countries to persons who are bona fide travellers, for business or other good purposes, as easy and as expeditions as possible. I would like to see this country maintain the name of being in this connection the freest country in the world.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said a great many thinks with we all agree, about this country being the freest
country in the world, but that does not match at all this Estimate. He says that 1500 passports are issued daily, and that a hundred of them have to fee specially examined because people put wrong names or photographs on them. A great many of us think that the whole thing, as far as foreigners coming into this country are concerned, is a bad thing. We think it is a restraint on commerce, and also that it is utterly opposed to the spirit that should prevail in the world now that the War is over. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is our opinion. The Committee, is asked now to vote the money for the luxury of passing the Aliens Act.
Is he really compelled by the Aliens Act to make it incumbent on foreigners to have either a passport or a visé? The first Section of the Act says that the power exercisable under the 1914 Act shall be exercisable for a further year under the Act. It would appear from that that it is an option and not an Order on the Foreign Office to do this. Is it really necessary? It creates friction and suspicion, particularly between the United States and ourselves. There was an Aliens Act before the War which was perfectly satisfactory from the criminal point of view, and this proposal represents the interference by a number of clerks with the liberties of Americans and other foreigners coming to this country. If it is an option I suggest that it would be very much in the interests of this country and world peace that the whole passport system should revert to the state in which it was before the War, which was perfectly satisfactory, whereby foreigners were permitted to come to this country, and reciprocally we were permitted to go to other countries without all this interference.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, and I think it is absolutely essential to have passports. If we had not there would be a large influx of aliens, and I think they should be kept out for some considerable period of time. I congratulate the Minister in charge on the immense improvement which has taken place in the passport office during the course of the past year. I have had occasion to go there several times, and the work done there is very great, and done very rapidly, and every
facility possible is given. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he cannot manage to persuade other countries, and particularly Switzerland, to follow the example which we are now setting, and to give facilities not only to enter the country, but also for getting home. A few weeks ago I was in Switzerland, where the difficulties of getting in and out are immense, and partly on account of the French authorities, who stop you at the French frontier, where recently a Member of this House was searched by the French authorities. A few minutes afterwards we reached the Swiss frontier, where you have similar sort of nonsense. You are kept there for an hour or so, horded into a small apartment, with the utmost discomfort. When I wished to return there was the utmost difficulty in getting a visé on my passport. Unfortunately, I had not got the aller et retour visé, which would have allowed me to go backwards and forwards with ease. The difficulties also of getting a French visé on the Swiss passport were immense. The trouble that was given to every British visitor there was so great that I very much doubt if they will particularly wish to visit Switzerland unless beter facilities are given.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GRIFFITHS: I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in congratulating the Foreign Office in the vast improvement on the passport system. I had recently to send some dozen men abroad, and the evening of the day on which the application was made I had their passports complete with photographs. The hon. Member for Leith (Captain Benn) advocated the abolition of the passport system. If an Englishman leaves without a passport he will get hung up at the first foreign port he comes to. The passports I obtained for the men I mention were not at the request of the British Government, but because I could not get the men to their destination without a passport.

Captain BENN: They do it because we do it.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: No, it was always their system.

Mr. T. SHAW: I went dozens of times to the Continent before the War without any passport.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: A passport was necessary in the majority of foreign countries. When the abolition of the passport system is advocated, let me remind the Committee I was sent here to represent Wandsworth, pledged to stop foreigners flocking into this country. This House of Commons in deference to that expressed wish throughout the country was sent here in a huge majority to see that foreigners did not swarm into this country while we had 350,000 discharged soldiers awaiting employment. I am perfectly sure this House has no mandate to alter or amend any law which would allow that to happen, and which would be the case if we abolished the passport system. I hope it will be maintained. In Paris the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City approached the French authorities to try and improve the difficulties there. He was successful and worked wonders, so that the position in this respect is much easier there. If the Foreign Office could follow that excellent example in the case of the Swiss and other Governments and ask them to make it easier for those engaged in trade and commerce and other people, I think we should find all the difficulties which exist, not in this country but in others, would practically disappear.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I note the ironical cheers with which I am greeted by some hon. Members who are friends of the alien, but I will take the platform in any part of this country as against those unpatriotic Members of this House who are seeking to undo all that we did last year with the full support of the country behind us. I am not the less desirous of joining in the appeal that has been made to the Under-Secretary in the hope that the Foreign Office may induce France and Switzerland to alter their conditions so as to permit possibly of some modification. But can you wonder that France objects? She has boon overrun by spies and undesirables of every kind. She has had attempts made to upset her Governments by those mischievous operations and disreputable people. As for Switzerland, she has been choked from the first moment of the War by the very worst type, and a type one may describe with distinct emphasis as the scum of the earth. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith would be only too glad to see that very scum back amongst us. Really the
traditions of the Liberal party are past finding out. How they can call themselves the mirror of the people's mind, as they have done in my recollection from this very Bench—

Mr. DEVLIN: When?

Sir H. NIELD: In 1906, when it was suggested that that election was the mirror of the people's mind, and when I took occasion to point out that in that mirror there was the face of a Chinaman. Do not let us get into any maudlin sentimental nonsense with regard to this matter, because hon. Members or their constituents or friends do not like to have a little trouble. If a man is on his own private business he ought to be provided, and probably is, with a passport. During the time I went backwards and forwards I had a passport and had no trouble. During the War it was necessary to produce the passport at any time. Even in the present condition of things it is impossible to call this a state of profound peace. The whole of Europe is seething exactly in the same way it was seething from 1810 onwards, when the result of the great operations of Napoleon left it uncertain which country he was going to attack next. There was no doubt then temporarily a state of peace and people were moving about and transacting business. The same conditions prevail to-day. There is no doubt that if there were any relaxation of this passport system people would come into this country who would be detrimental to the national interests and the national welfare. [Laughter] Hon. Members may laugh, but they know perfectly well what would happen. Lenin and Trotsky, for instance, have got emissaries, and I have no doubt some hon. Members would receive them with open arms. I do urge, if persons are to travel for pleasure, or even for health, it is incumbent on them to take a little trouble in order to smooth their journey by getting the proper visé and the right passports. I do not desire to go to Switzerland. I prefer to do national work at home, whether in session or out of it, rather than spend money abroad for the benefit of the foreigner, or to look upon a foreign place as necessarily a health-giving resort when we have got our own coastal towns, such as Torquay, Bournemouth, &c., to go to. I protest at these covert attacks which are
being made upon the Aliens Act, and all this nonsense which is being talked about the freedom of the country. It reminds me of Sam Weller's famous remark at Ipswich, when he was confronted by a constable and his crown on the top of his staff. "Very pretty," said Samuel, "but it is not what I care about." This talk about freedom and about not taking a little trouble is really beneath contempt. It is no use boasting about freedom. Let us do unto others as we are done by, and inasmuch as the Continent is to-day the most exclusive place, and quite rightly—those portions of the Continent that it is worth putting your head into are exclusive—then I say we ought to remain equally exclusive until, by common consent, the restrictions can be removed and people enabled to travel about freely if they so desire. For my own part, I venture to think that the less people travel just now the better it will be for the good of their fellow-countrymen and themselves.

Mr. HOLMES: We have listened to some interesting speeches, particularly the last, and I am sure it will be a delight to certain seaside towns in this country to hear that the hon. Gentleman has not been abroad and does not intend to go abroad, and that he advocates that people should go to such health resorts as Torquay, Bournemouth, and Silvertown. In the course of his speech he answered a point raised by the hon. and gallant member for Holderness (Captain Wilson), who stated that he had great difficulty in getting across France to Switzerland. But why? The hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) answered it. He told us that Switzerland had been packed during the war by the scum of the earth, and that they did not want any more. So the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness, when he next wants to go to Switzerland, must not mind if he has a little trouble in getting there. The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government said we had done all we could and were really dependent, so far as facilities abroad were concerned, on foreign countries. I suggest that we are not in some cases setting a completely good example, and are still putting difficulties in the way of our own travellers when they go abroad. I know of one case of two ladies who wished to go from Marseilles to Algiers, and they thought
their passports to France would take them to Algiers. They went from their hotel in Marseilles on to the steamer, and were then told it was no good unless they got a visé from the British Consul. As going to get the visé meant missing the boat, on the pretext of seeing to their luggage in the cabin, they retired to the cabin and locked themselves in. The boat started and took them on, and when the French authorities found they had not got the British vigé they shrugged their shoulders and said it did not matter so far as they were concerned. Why should our people therefore have the trouble of getting the British visé there at all?

Sir PARK GOFF: I am one of those who are in entire agreement with the passport system as regards keeping the aliens out of this country. I want to join issue with the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth (Sir J. Griffiths) in what he said about our Passport Office. I think they have always shown the greatest courtesy and quickness in getting passports out. You have got to differentiate between the passport and the visé, and I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote that he might expedite the American and Swiss consulates in this matter. People have been delayed a very long time at the American Consulate-General and at the Swiss Consulate in getting their passports viséd, I should like to suggest that he should expedite the passage of British subjects on certain foreign frontier, notably on the Swiss frontier going into Switzerland, and on the French frontier coming out of Switzerland. I also wish ho could expedite matters on the Spanish frontier, where considerable delays take place on both sides. It is not the fault of our visés or passports, but it is a great deal the fault of the officials. They are often very ignorant, and oven thoroughly uneducated. I was passing the Portuguese frontier in 391V with one of my colleagues, and we both had the same credentials. He was taken aside and kept for an hour, because there was something wrong with his passport, so they alleged, but it was simply ignorance, because they could not read the passport and did not understand the visé. On the other hand, the official who came into my
carriage, read my passport diligently, upside down, for five minutes, and then handed it back to me and said, "It is all right." I heartily support the passport system as it is at present, and think it very desirable in order to keep out the aliens from this country.

Major GLYN: I should like to know if the actual visé system is quite efficient from the Home Office point of view. One is herded into a small place with a whole crowd of people to have one's passport viséd, and the very confusion and inadequacy of the arrangements give an ideal chance for an undesirable alien to slip through. If the country is under the impression that the visé system, as it is practised at present, keeps aliens out, I think that is a mistake, and the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), if he travelled occasionally and took, say, the Newhaven-Dieppe or the Havre route, would find a very indifferent state of efficiency in the examination of passports. It is by those less frequented routes that the undesirable aliens arrive, and owing to the confusion that exists they have a very good chance of slipping through. If the Home Office are satisfied that this is the best system, I feel sure everybody would submit to it, but I would urge the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to do all he can, either to put on the screw so that it is efficient or else to withdraw it altogether.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I should like, with permission to answer a few of the points that have been raised and to remind the House that I am not asking for more than ten pounds on this Vote. In reference to the remark of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), I can assure him that the procedure under the Aliens Act is not optional but mandatory. Parliament passed that Act after long Debates. It is administered by the Home Office, and at certain ports of this country they have alien officers and every incoming traveller is examined. The custom, generally, is for the alien officer to go on board the ship on the point of departure from the foreign country. The aliens are collected together in a portion of the ship and their documents examined during the voyage, and anyone who has seen aliens who cannot speak our language, in a rolling ship, everybody seasick except
the aliens officer, will understand some of the difficulties of enforcing the Aliens Act. But it is important, and if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Major Glyn) has not seen the actual enforcement of the Act it is not because the Act is not enforced, but because the majority of people who come to this country are Britishers and are passed by reason of their British passports. The number of aliens held back for close examination is, speaking generally, a minority of every shipload of incoming travellers. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith questions the wisdom of this, but I say this is a procedure which is essential efficiently to carry out the Aliens Act and the Foreign Office acts therefore to assist the Home Office. It is entirely for the benefit of the bonâ fide incoming alien business man or traveller. He gets his passport viséd by the British Consular officer in the country of his nationality, and he has, therefore, no further trouble.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: What is the use of the visé?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It shows that a British Consular officer, with the knowledge of the Aliens Act in the country from which the alien comes, has personally seen that alien, has personally viséd that alien's passport, and therefore as far as he can, has identified him as the person carrying the passport and as a desirable person to visit these shores. I do not know of any better way of doing it, and I know the machinery is effective with the very minimum of inconvenience, and I would add that there are some aliens who have found very great inconvenience in getting into this country, but that was the intention of the Act. With reference to the question of money, these passports are not paid for by the general taxpayer. They cost in England 5s. apiece, and they are paid for by those ladies and gentlemen who, mainly for business, sometimes for pleasure, travel abroad. I do not see why they should not pay for these passports and I do not see why we should forego the revenue which we secure from them. I myself think that 5s. is the very minimum charge that ought to be paid for such a document.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: Would you agree to double it?

7.0 P.M.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Remember, this passport is issued for the purpose of helping the travelling Britisher, and it does help him, I know of no other document issued which stands for more than the passport carried by a British subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) quite rightly paid a tribute to Mr. Martin, the head of the Passport Service, a most efficient public servant, who has made our passport system the most expeditious in the world, and if all other Governments had as courteous and efficient a staff as we have, I am sure there would be no complaints. I take note of the fact that several hon. Gentlemen have urged me to make representations to foreign countries to expedite the granting of visés in those foreign countries, and I think the criticism in this Debate will make the case the stronger from our point of view. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) mentioned the case of two ladies travelling from Marseilles to Algiers, I cannot dispute his statement, but under no conceivable system would English ladies with a British passport want a visé going from Marseilles to Algiers. What has happened, I think, is this. When they got their passport here they were asked where they were going, and they said France, and the passport was endorsed "France," when it ought to have been endorsed. "France and Algiers."

Mr. HOLMES: What I want to point out is that they have actually been from France to Algiers without a visé, which shows that France does not care whether they get a visé or not.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The question of visé docs not arise here. The question is the endorsement of the name of the country to which they were travelling. However, I am glad to know that two British ladies have the pluck to defy the authorities. I sincerely hope the Committee will give me this token Vote of £10, and enable me to take note of the wishes of the Committee with reference to this important matter.

Mr. J. JONES: May I ask whether there are political considerations which weigh with the issue of passports?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that there are any political considerations weighing with the issue of British passports to British subjects. I know in days gone by there has been refusal of passports to certain British citizens. There have been a very few cases of that kind. I could not go into the merits of each individual case at this moment, but if the hon. Member has any special case ho would like to bring to my notice I will deal with it on its merits.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us why passports were issued to Mr. Lansbury to go to Russia?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No passports were issued to Mr. Lansbury for Russia. He must have secured a passport from some other country for Russia.

Mr. JONES: You bar Russia, then, from the issue of passports? We are not at war.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This country has not now diplomatic relations with Russia, and until they are resumed the passport question does not arise.

Question put, and agreed to.

COLONIAL OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £73,550, be granted to His Majesty; to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid and other Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): The Vote to which I am asking the Committee to assent is considerably larger than the one we have just been discusing, but I venture to hope it will prove somewhat less contentious. As it includes one or two new matters which have not been brought to the notice of the Committee before, I believe it will be for the convenience of the Committee, and probably save time, if I endeavour briefly to explain the main items in the Supplementary Vote. I do not think the first item, which deals with the provision for increased war bonus, requires explanation. It is an item which has occurred in a number of other Supplementary Estimates, and I do not believe in any Department of His Majesty's Service has increased war bonus been better earned
by capable and devoted service. The next item is Oversea Settlement Office, which has increased from the original Estimate of £8,000 to the revised Estimate of £13,500. That Office, originally known as the Government Emigration Office—and I may say the change of name was made in order to indicate clearly the distinction which exists in the mind of those responsible for the Office, and, I hope, in the mind of every British subject between oversea settlement within the British Empire and emigration outside the British Empire to foreign countries—took over the work of the original Emigrants Information Office, because the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, now First Lord of the Admiralty, thought it was the duty of His Majesty's Government, during the period of reconstruction, to take a more direct and closer interest in the problems of oversea settlement and emigration. A Government Committee was set up with the special task of seeing that the fullest possible information and advice was given to every British subject who was considering the question of emigrating, also of seeing how far direct assistance might in certain eases be desirable, in the interest of the individual or of the public generally, and, further, to secure really effective and intimate co-operation with, the Oversea Governments, so that the natural and inevitable stream of emigration should flow in those channels which, both from the point of view of the individuals concerned and of the British Empire, might be most beneficial.
The justification for this Vote is to be found in the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee, which was laid on the Table of this House about a week ago, and, in view of the great importance of the subject, I should like to appeal most earnestly and most sincerely to all Members of the House to get that Report and read for themselves the work which the Committee has done, considering the immense importance of this whole problem for the future welfare of this country, and the future strength and security of the British Empire. What I have to deal with, however, this evening, is the actual increase in the Vote. Now this is a new Department, and, consequently, it was only possible at the beginning of the year to estimate very roughly the future expenditure. It was impossible to know
what number of people would require advice, assistance and guidance, either people going to other parts of the Empire on their own, or ex-service men going under special facilities. In justification of this increased expenditure, I would like to give the Committee one or two figures as to the actual increase of work, and that during a year in which shipping has only become available to a very moderate extent, and really only in the last few months of the year. At the beginning of the year the office, which was then situated in a hut on the Horse Guards Parade, which very soon proved wholly inadequate for the work it had to do, was receiving about thirty letters daily. The average number of letters received to-day is something like 450. I may mention that when a statement appeared in the Press a week or two ago of some special facilities the New Zealand Government was offering, at once the correspondence went up to between 750 and 1,000 letters a day.
In the same way, one of the principal functions of the office is to interview personally, and give every information, guidance and assistance to any British subject who is meditating the very serious question of leaving this country and crossing the ocean. At the present moment something like 100 callers come every day to get guidance in this matter, which is of such immense interest and importance to themselves as well as to the future welfare of this country, and the parts of the Empire to which they are going. I am glad to say we have had very many letters from men writing on their own initiative, thanking the office for the great courtesy and help rendered to them. That docs not only apply to persons who have been encouraged to go, but also—which is of no less importance—from persons who have been warned against being misled by specious advertisements or attrative promises in other parts of the Empire, and running the risk of losing such little capital as they have In more than one case we have saved an ex service man, on the very eve of departure, from embarking and venturing his whole capital on what scorned to us palpably a misleading advertisement. Both in that way, by correspondence and individual interviews, the issue of a large number of publications, public lectures and public warnings—in all these ways the work of the office has
gone up considerably, and a staff of 24, which was originally thought sufficient, has had to be increased to a staff of 60, and I can assure the Committee at this moment that the staff is very heavily over worked. It is impossible to tell what the growth of the future will be, having regard to shipping, but I believe ii will be difficult to carry on the work next year with a less estimate than £20,000. But I believe there are few ways in which the money of this House could be spent with more beneficial results, and with loss expenditure. There can be no greater waste of the wealth and resources of this country than that men should go overseas on bad advice when they would do better' at home. So much for the actual increase in the work of the Overseas Office.
Now as to the question of free passages to ex-service men and women. There has not been any Vote for this before. As far back as April last I had the privilege of making a statement in this House announcing the intentions of the Government in the matter. I believe I will have the whole Committee with me when I say that we ought to, and wish to, give these men, women, and children the greatest possible opportunities that the Empire can afford. These men fought not only for their own part of the Empire but for the whole Empire, and the Empire should be thrown open to them. Various Overseas Dominions are affording opportunities. They have their schemes for ex-service men's settlement, most of which are arranged so that our ex-service men can participate in them. For obvious reasons, such as considerations of finance, there is a limit to the opportunities that can be given. But, for instance, this is what Canada is offering to her ex-service men, and our Imperial ex-service men are included. They are offering advances of £1,600, at the present rate of exchange nearly £2,000, in the shape of land and equipment on very easy terms.
The view we have taken is that while, of course, we want ex-service men and women to have every facility that can be offered in this country, we also desire to provide them with facilities for going to any part of our Dominions where they may wish to make a home and where they think they will be better off. Hundreds of thousands of these men would have gone overseas but for the War. There are many of them who had saved up a little money for this purpose and who
have had to spend that little capital sum for the support of their families during the War. It seems only right and fair that the British Government should do everything it can for them and for their wives or families and widows and dependants. If they wish to go to any part of the Dominions, where they think they can do better, then under certain conditions we will give them a free third class passage, and this applies to the families and dependants. They are given a third-class railway ticket and the oversea passage to the nearest convenient port.

Sir F. HALL: When they get to the oversea port, are they given a free ticket for the remainder of their journey?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: When they arrive at the other side, it must be a matter for the Dominion Government concerned. We find the free passage to the nearest convenient port—nearest to their ultimate destination. Of course, we cannot force people upon the Dominion Governments if they do not want them. There might be a want of proper employment for them there, and therefore it has been arranged that the persons sent out must be acceptable to the Oversea Government. They must be such as can obtain employment, and therefore they must be approved of by the representative of that Government hero. We are not going to send out people who are likely to be a failure. The plan upon which we are acting is that any individuals who desire to go out can make application to us on a proper form. We then see whether they are people who have seen service or who in other ways fulfil the conditions of the Dominion Government. This application then goes to the representative of the Dominion Government concerned. Then that Dominion Government—or Overseas Government—it applies to every part of the British Empire—through its authorities, reports whether or not it is willing to accept that person, and then finding that there is this opportunity we give a free ticket and a voucher, as well as a form of passport, to enable him to go.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: Do they go in that way to all the British Colonies?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, to any part of the Empire.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could we be informed what amount of
money would be necessary and what number of people are going to be affected? What is the possible total expense?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I was coming to that. I cannot say just yet how many people will avail themselves of the opportunities, and we cannot tell what the expense will be until we know how many there would be. Many of the men who are demobilised will prefer to settle in this country, or at any rate to see how they shape here. But if they do decide to go overseas, they can send in an application up to the end of this year, and if it is found that they are suitable persons they will have these facilities from us. We have had about 10,000 applications, representing some 18,000 persons. Those who have been accepted by the Overseas Governments and who have sailed or are at this moment sailing number some 2000, representing some 10,000 or 12,000 people. The total cost is, up to the present, expected to be about £51,000. That is the best estimate the Oversea Settlement Office is able to form. We are necessarily at this moment only able to speculate as to the extent to which money will be required; but we estimate that it may reach £1,000,000 next year and another £1,000,000 the year after. If there is a smaller number of people, of course, that would be reduced. We shall be able to see in a short time, because application for these particular privileges by men already demobilised must be sent in up to the end of this year.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: Is it only up to the end of this year?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Yes, any application up to December 31st, 1920, will be considered, but any ex-service man who has stayed on in the Service can apply within 12 months of his demobilisation. There are some who have enlisted for a longer period than three years, and these must give notice before the end of this year.

Mr. J. JONES: Does it include men who have taken a "pier-head jump," and gone away and left their wives and families in this country?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I suppose the hon. Member is referring to men from the Colonies who have served in the War?

Mr. JONES: No, I mean men who went to the Colonies before the War, who joined when in the Colonies, and who are now going back to the Colonies with assisted passages and leaving their wives and children at home at the expense of the Poor Law.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: So far as these men may have joined the Dominion forces, they are not eligible under our scheme, but if they belong to any of the British forces we will make every endeavour to assist them if they want to go, and also their wives and families. There is a separate measure dealing with the maintenance of wives and families of men who have gone overseas. It would give facilities for enforcing maintenance orders on the other side of the water.

Mr. JONES: I am raising this question in the interests of the boards of guardians in this country as against these men who have taken what is called a "pier-head jump," men who have joined overseas and have gone back, leaving their wives and families in the charge of the local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: There is a Bill which was ready to be introduced last year, and which I hope to introduce shortly, to deal with this difficulty. It enables the authorities at the other side of the water to enforce these maintenance orders and transmit the money to the responsible authority. I hope I will receive the hearty support of the hon. Member for this measure.

Mr. JONES: Yes, you will.

Dr. MURRAY: What steps are being taken to make these offers known?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: When this matter was first announced in the last Parliament there was very little shipping available, and it was not desirable to advertise the particulars too vigorously. But it was announced in the papers, and the various emigration authorities knew all about it. As shipping does become available, those interested in the problem I hope will interest themselves in this offer of the British Government. I hope Members of this House who are in touch with these ex-service men, when they find that they cannot find what they think is just right in this country, and think they would do better overseas, will help them to take advantage of it, and to get into touch with the Oversea Settlement Office.
Apart from that, the National Relief Fund has given assistance and a sum of money to help those cases, not necessarily ex-service cases, who have suffered hardships owing to the War and would be benefited by settling overseas. There is a joint Committee of the National Relief Fund and the Oversea Settlement Office, and a considerable number of cases have come before it in the last few weeks. These men are given such money as may be necessary to enable them and their families to go overseas if they do not come under the Government schemes, and it would also provide for hard cases. I believe that in this way a great deal of good work has been done.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: What sort of qualifications will be required, and what steps will be taken to train those people who are going overseas? Will you see that they are able to take proper advantage of these opportunities?

Lieut. - Colonel AMERY: Yes, the Oversea Governments concerned make enquiries as to the industrial and other qualifications of these people; and as to the prospects in particular industries, they will be looked alter in that way by the Governments overseas. People with agricultural knowledge will, of course, be taken by them. In the case of the men selected by the Canadian Government for their Settlement Scheme they will be put under training for a period of from six months to two years on specially selected farms, during which time they will be able to earn full wages. The Canadian Government does not want to spend their money in advances to men who have not farming knowledge; but when it is satisfied that they have or that they will justify the money spent on them, it will give them proper facilities for learning Canadian methods of agriculture.

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: What will the Canadian Government do for these men apart from the farms and buildings?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Government is offering them the farms, buildings and equipment on easy terms. Nearly 5,000 dollars worth of land, 2,000 dollars worth of buildings and 1,000 dollars worth of equipment. Private bodies such as the Officers' Association or the National Relief Fund may assist them to meet the case of producing the £200 of total capital required. They may, in certain cases,
give up to £100, if they want that to make it good.

Mr. E. WOO D: There is a point of much interest I should like to ask: Is every man who receive an assisted passage assured of and guaranteed employment and subsistence for a certain period until, say, he has got on to his farm?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir; it is not the ease that there is any assurance of continued employment. It would be very difficult to know exactly what that would mean in all its bearings. When a man is accepted by the Canadian Government for settlement, the Government, having a prescribed period of preliminary training, will no doubt see to it if he is a good and willing man, that he is looked after. On the other hand, if, say, he is-promised employment, possibly by a relative or by a reputable firm, and the Government of the Dominion, in view of the-whole labour situation overseas, say that he can come, I do not think you can ask the Government to give a guarantee of continued employment.
There is a further item with which I wish to deal, that is £2,500 for a year for assisting the Oversea Settlement of British Women. This is half the total amount of £5,000 given provisionally, at any rate for two years, to help the Society for Oversea Settlement of British Women. I do not think anybody can exaggerate the importance of this question. As a result, not only of the excessive male emigration' before the War, but also of the awful casualties of this War, we have, at this-moment, in these islands a surplus of very nearly 1,300,000 women. On the other hand, in the Dominions there is still, though the War has diminished it, a considerable surplus of men, and a very great demand for women, especially those capable of performing every form of domestic help. It is in the best interests of this country, and of every part of the Empire, that it should be made easy and possible for these women to go out to these Dominions under the best possible conditions.

Mr. HURD: We want them here!

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I should like to point out, though, that however desirable it may be to equalise the populations, in so far as may be, of the Dominions and of this country, it is necessary to remember that women are much more difficult to
transplant successfully than men. It is, therefore, of much more importance that the women who go overseas should be carefully selected, for many women do very well in this country who are not fitted by their disposition or their upbringing to face oversea conditions. It is a disaster for them, for this country, and for the oversea countries if they are lured abroad by emigration agencies, the prospect of good conditions, and speedy marriage, and find afterwards that the matter has been over-stated. There is a considerable prejudice, it is important to remember, in many of the Dominions against English women, arising simply from a certain number of eases of women who have gone over, tempted by emigration agencies, and not being fitted for the life there, ought to have stayed at home. They require selection, protection, and care on the voyage. You also require to make arrangements for their reception when they arrive at the other side under new and strange conditions. You require, too, some sort of organisation to befriend and look after them after they have got employment in the Dominions.
A good deal has already been done to meet the situation. For instance, in Canada the work in connection with the immigration of women was in the hands of various bodies of helpers. These have now formed themselves into a single federated body to look after the interests of every British woman immigrant. All the different bodies that used to work separately, and have separate hostels, the Y.W.C.A. and so on, have combined and the Canadian Government gives them substantial financial assistance to carry on their work. In this country we are aiming to do exactly the same thing. We had a number of women's emigration societies all doing very good work. There is the Salvation Army, the Church Army, various friendly societies, and latterly the War Services Committee, who look after the interests of women in the War Corps and the Land Army—all these bodies have united together to look after the emigration of British women to the Dominions, under the title of The Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women. To enable them to carry on that responsible work effectively the Oversea Settlement Committee, which is a Government Department, feeling that they could safely entrust the
work to this voluntary organisation, have made a grant of £5,000. That is all I need say on that matter, except perhaps this—and it is an important point—we are only, I believe, at the beginning of one of the most important movements in the whole Empire. I am sure it is inevitable, whatever we say or do, that within the next few years a very large number of men and women will be seized with the old passion for roving, which is so deep-seated in our race, and will go to other parts of the world. It is desirable, therefore, that they should go under the best possible conditions, that those not fitted to go should be held back, and those fitted should be assisted in every possible way. This is in the best interests, not only of individuals, and not only to promote their happiness and the homes and happiness of their children in the future, but also to consolidate the strength and well-being of this country. I am not one of those who is in the least afraid that we are going to lose our best.
The War has shown us that the great bulk of our people are the best. We have only to get the opportunity such as the War gave us to find that we have the stuff of which heroes are made in every part of our Empire I am not in the least afraid that, however many of our people go to add to the strength of our oversea dominions, that we shall not have an accession of fresh ability and fresh blood in our own country. All these qualities have been shown in recent years. After all, it is not pruning that diminishes the fruit of the tree, and though emigration may take place we will not thereby weaken the old country Does anyone suggest that the population of this country could to-day hold all the descendants of those who in old days went to Australia, Canada, America? On the contrary, if there had not been great emigration during the last century, and if we had not sent people to Canada, Australia, South Africa, for this country to draw sustenance from, we could not have supported as many people as we do. Emigration, so long as it is wise and prudent, does not diminish, but in the long run will actually increase and strengthen the population of this country. Yet, on the other hand, it does make all the difference whether those concerned emigrate to places within the British Empire, or whether they go outside.
After all, within the Empire and under the flag, with trade between them, they should be the strength of this country and of the Empire as a whole in peace and in war. Of quite a different character is that emigration which proceeds to other countries.
In the last year, before the War, for instance, the average British subject in the Dominions bought twenty times as much from this country as the average American, though of the same blood and race. Again, during the War, the populations, comparatively small, both of Canada and Australia each put a greater effort into the War, if you reckon effort by loss of life on the battlefield, captures from the enemy, work in the trenches— any test you like—than did the great United States From that point of view, similarly, I think we may safely reckon that one Englishman who goes to any of the Dominions is, from the point of view of the security of the Empire, worth twenty times as much as one who goes outside. Therefore, if there is going to be this great movement of population in the future, let us do everything we can to encourage it to remain within the confines of our Empire, to add strength in war, and what is still more necessary for the coming generation, strength and prosperity in peace. We are just at the beginning of our development. Ours is the youngest Empire in the world. All it needs is the proper development of its human capacity. That is what in a small way we are aiming at in our work of this Sub-department of the Colonial Office to help our self-governing Dominions, as far as we can, to secure the largest number of happy homes and to make the position one of strength, security, and the peaceful and continuous development of our Empire.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: We can all congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the statement we have just hoard. This is one of the greatest steps we have taken in this country. I refer to assisting emigration. When I first came back from Africa after 11 years' interval, it happened that when I was in a certain part of this country, in Staffordshire, I came across heaps of men who were dying to follow, more or less, in my footsteps, and to get abroad to some part of the British Possessions. I commenced an Imperial League, and we sent out under its auspices carefully selected men and
women to good jobs. When I afterwards met these people in Canada and elsewhere, I think, without exception, every one of them was married and living happy, contented, and prosperous lives, with children growing up. That was much better and a better gain to the Empire than the Englishman marrying some foreigner because a British woman was not about. From that I made a point of assisting men who had big families of seven or eight growing up. There were nearly 100 families from that part and from other parts whom I was responsible for sending over to different parts of the Empire, where they were received and taken care of, and in not one case did I hear of any failure. It was just a little personal effort to try and do what the State, as we hear to-day, is now doing, particularly—and rightly so—in regard to men who have fought for their country. I can conceive of no step which would do more to strengthen the bonds of the British Empire than that which has been described to-night by the Acting Secretary of State for the Colonics. There will be some criticism—I have heard it in this House—that we want the men at home, and we want the women at home. If they go out to the Empire, in my sense of the word, it is still home. The Empire is my country, England is my homo," is an expression that we have often heard. When these men, as I have heard them in France, got talking with men from overseas, who describe their different lives, the result has been that friendships have been formed, and some of our men have made up their minds that, as soon as things settled down, they would try and go out; and in turn those men from overseas have said, "We will receive you and welcome you and find you a job." Nothing would have kept mo, at a certain age of my life, from going out to Africa, and I have never regretted the day I went. There are thousands of others who will do that, and if they do not themselves come back, their children, or their children's children, will come back to this country. It helps us to develop the whole British Empire with Britishers and Britishers only, and that is the one thing which, as I have always advocated, should be the main object of this Government and of the Governments of the Dominions and Crown Colonics throughout the Empire. There will be large
numbers of men—we are in constant touch with some of them now—who were either in an office before, or were working at some employment which more or less confined them to a house during the greater part of the clay. Those men, by virtue of their service overseas, have now got to a stage when they feel that they cannot go back to those offices. It is not a question of pay or reward, but of the feeling that they want to see more of the world. They have seen those men from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and are bent on going abroad to see for themselves where they can get greater opportunities for advancement than they can in this country.
I congratulate sincerely the Acting-Colonial Secretary on the most encouraging news which he has given us to-night. The only criticism I have to make is that it is a pity that more was not made of it. I quite see the advisability of not talking too much about it at the time, because it might have caused a rush which we could not have dealt with, and in any case the shipping could not then deal with the men who had come to fight from one part or another of the Empire and who had to be returned there; but I submit, particularly in view of the fact that there is a limit of time to the end of this year, that every possible means ought to be taken to let this be officially known to the large number of men who fought in this War, many of whom must and will be desirous of accepting the Government's help in this matter. When we compare the total amount under this heading, namely, £73,550, with what this means to the Empire as a whole, that sum, if it is, as I am sure it will be, voted by this House, will be the cheapest bit of work we have done for a long time.

Mr. J. JONES: It will increase production.

Sir J. GRIFFITHS: Yes, in many senses of the word, and it will certainly help to develop those undeveloped stretches of country in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and elsewhere, which are crying out for development in order to produce more of the things which we require. If we set our hands to it, the Empire could easily pro duce almost everything that this country wants. I hope that the Colonial Office, if they should find that the present staff is
too small to cope with this work, will have no hesitation whatever in coming down to this House and asking for a further Vote to enlarge the staff, so that it may be adequate to deal with the work in view. I am sure it will be found that there will be not less than 500,000 ex-service men who, if they could get these jobs to go to, and if they knew they would be welcome, would be glad to go. We know that the Dominions, benefiting by past experience, have set up machinery which will prevent what used to happen in past years, namely, men wandering to a part of the Dominions where there was no one to receive, to look after and to help them. That machinery exists now in most of the Dominions. I do not know whether it exists in all of the Crown Colonies, but if not I hope that that will receive the serious attention of my hon. and gallant Friend. By that machinery it is made certain that men are only taken as they can be absorbed, and that when they arrive they are properly cared for and sent to their destination. In Canada, particularly, the most detailed machinery exists for receiving the men directly the boat ties up. I see great prospects in the near future of benefits to the whole Empire, and to this country in particular, from the excellent working of the organisation which has now been set up.

Mr. G. MURRAY: I do not intend to take up much of the time of the Committee, because I believe that we should, so far as possible, confine ourselves to the financial side of the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates; but there are certain Estimates under this Vote which foreshadow an entirely new policy from the point of view of the Government, and therefore I may be permitted to say one or two words upon it. First of all, I should like to second what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down with regard to the general policy of the Colonial Office in setting up this Oversea Settlement Office. I think that the Acting-Secretary of State for the Colonies is to be very much congratulated upon having taken this matter so thoroughly in hand, and upon having arrived at such an excellent result. I have had the opportunity of reading the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee, which was published last week, and I must say, from a long experience of reports, that it is one of the most lucid and excellent reports I have ever
had the opportunity of reading. It goes into its subjects so thoroughly and so effectively that really, taking the admirable additional explanation which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech, there is very little left to ask. There are, however, one or two points which I should like to have further elucidated.
8.0 P.M.
I observe that the accommodation available in the new premises at 59, Victoria Street has become inadequate. I do not approach this from the point of view of criticising the expenditure upon those premises, but from the point of view of the extreme importance, to my mind, of maintaining all the unified organisations, if I may so call them, under one roof. I do hope that, whatever arrangement is arrived at by the Secretary of State for the Colonies with the Hoard of Works, he will keep that aspect in view, so that it will not be necessary for one sub-Department of the unified organisation to go to another street in order to consult with another sub-Department. Another point which has struck me is the importance of Government control of emigration as a whole. I observe that the Society for Oversea Settlement of British Women has a separate Vote allocated to it of £2,500 until the 31st March. I am not quite clear from the report whether, although it is intended to house that society under the same roof, it will actually operate as an independent unit, or whether it will merely be an advisory body to the Central Committee. Personally I should like to see it an advisory body to the Central Committee, and to see all the executive work done by the Executive Committee. Further, I should like to know how that £5,000 a year which is being granted to the society is going to be spent. That brings me to another point which was dealt with fairly fully by the hon. Gentleman, and that is the emigration of women to our Overseas Dominions There are some amazing figures in the Report which has been referred to by the hon. Gentleman. He pointed out that at the present moment there was a surplus of 1¼ million women over men in this country. On the other hand, in the Dominions there is still a surplus of men, and we find it stated in the Report that there can be no doubt while the Committee are not in possession of statistics,
that the War has also had the effect of reducing the surplus male population of the self-governing Dominions, which in 1911 was considerable. But it was reasonably certain that a surplus still existed, and, therefore, it was highly desirable simultaneously to diminish the surplus of women in the United Kingdom and of men oversea by encouraging the emigration of women oversea. An hon. Gentleman sitting opposite suggested that it was desirable to keep these women here. I believe with the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth, that the Empire is our homo as well as this country, and if we can help these surplus women by emigration, and by sending them to another part of the Eempire, we are only assisting to build up the Empire with our own flesh and blood.
I am quite sure that the Labour party will agree with this sentiment. I can remember a Bill which was before this House recently claiming the restoration of trade union rights, and, during the Debates upon it, we had considerable discussion on the question whether women should or should not be admitted into trade unions. Anything that we can do to assist these surplus women to find homes across the sea in our own Dominions must surely command the acceptance of hon. members on the Labour Benches. There was another question discussed in the House during the last few days, namely, the question of the extension of franchise to women of the age of twenty-one. Under that Bill it was proposed to extend the franchise to 5,000,000 women in this country at a cost of something like £300,000 or £400,000. I contend it would be very much better to spend that money in assisting our womenfolk to cross the seas where there is work and where there are men waiting for them, instead of giving them the vote in this country. If when the Budget comes in for 1920–21 I see a largely increased Vote for the purpose of settling women in the British Empire overseas I should gladly give it my hearty support. I can only, urge the hon. Gentleman to continue the vigorous policy which he has started so well, and thus to increase and build up the prosperity of the Empire.

Mr. BRIANT: I certainly do not wish to throw cold water on the scheme enunciated by my hon. Friend, but I would venture to urge that considerable care is necessary. Even within the last
few months the system, which is excellent in theory, has broken down in practice. I will give an illustration. Only four months ago two lads of 19, one a discharged soldier and the other a discharged sailor, were sent out from England. They were given assisted passages, and in addition £40 for their fares across Canada and for an outfit. They arrived in British Columbia, and there found an enormous number of discharged and demobilised Canadian soldiers. There was no work for them, and within a week they obtained employment in the United States, and are working there now. Each of them cost this country about £60 or £70, and they were only two or three days in Canada. After that they went across the border, and the United States is getting the advantage of their labour. Obviously, therefore, our system must have broken down. Either the men were sent to the wrong place, or they were sent at the wrong time. I have had some experience in emigration matters. Before the War I spent some time in Canada examining into the general question of emigration, and I followed the fortunes of a number of men and women who were sent out there. Even then we had a system which in theory was very muddling to people, and if my hon. Friend could see the muddle which goes on in Canada I think he would not be so enthusiastic over his proposal. It looks all right on paper, but when the people arrive in the emigration offices in Canada the only concern of the officials there is to get rid of them, to get them out, irrespective of what employment they are provided with. I remember the case of a young lad of about 17 who was sent out to Canada. I went to the emigration office to find out what work had been found for him, and I found they had placed him out as a billiard marker in a saloon in Montreal. He has friends in London, who would never have let him go out for work of that kind. He would have been far better at home. But that is an example of what goes on.
The second great evil is the exaggerated account given to emigrants of the prospects awaiting them. There is no land of milk and honey. People probably have to work far harder there than in England. But they go out with exaggerated ideas, they soon lose heart, and nothing is more fatal to an emigrant than the losing of
heart. Eventually he struggles back to England, having been a failure in the Dominions, and he finds it much easier to become a failure here. More than that, all the money spent upon him has been wasted. These are two up-to-date examples, which show that more care is needed than has been taken in the past in regard to emigration. The system, I repeat, good though it may be in theory, breaks down in practice. I am doubtful if there is much demand for emigrants in Canada or Australia just now. This House should remember that our Colonies are very much in the same position as ourselves. They have to deal with large numbers of demobilised soldiers, for whom employment must be found, and there is nothing which an Australian or Canadian resents more than seeing, when he himself is out of work, large numbers of Englishmen coming over there. Although emigration is, I believe, of enormous advantage to many people, I venture to suggest that, for the time being, we should go very slow and refrain as far as possible from upsetting the colonies by overflooding their labour market. The only other point is in regard to a question which I understand my hon. Friend is going to deal with, the deserted wives of colonial soldiers. I have very large information on that subject. I have fifty or sixty letters from deserted wives, and I urge my right hon. Friend to introduce that Bill as quickly as possible. Letters come to me almost every week. For come reason, my name got associated with the problem. They are terrible letters, incidentally interwoven with a greater problem still, the problem of divorce. They may have been very stupid, but there they are in England for the rest of their lives, married women with no possibility of divorce and not a farthing coming from their husbands in Australia or Canada. I am making no general charge against Canadian or Australian soldiers. They are as good a type as ours, but one only hears the bad cases, and they are an infinitesimal proportion of the total number, but I know that such men exist and such hard cases exist. I know a most pitiful ease where the woman is stranded without any income whatever. Some have come to the Poor Law. But much more distressing cases I have are those where people will not go to the Poor Law, though they are in a half-starved condition in consequence of desertion. Otherwise, I am in full
agreement with my learned and gallant Friend as to the general outline of his scheme, but considerably more care should be taken before the men are sent out, and, above all, they should not be hurried out, but he should be absolutely sure that the labour market is able to absorb them.

Mr. MYERS: I wish to make a few observations on the overseas settlement of British women, and I should like to put my observations in the form of questions to the learned and gallant Gentleman. Is he aware of the Report which has been published from the Army Medical Boards which disclose the fact that out of all the examinations which have been made only 36 per cent. of the men examined for military service were found normally fit, and that no fewer than 10 per cent. were unfit for military service of any kind? Is ho also aware that the Report of the medical officer of the Board of Education presents the fact that one child out of every six attending elementary schools is in such a mental and physical condition that it is not able to absorb the education that the State provides for it. Having regard to these facts, is it desirable to encourage and to pay for sending the best selected women out of the country? Without carrying the argument to the point of being indelicate, I would suggest that the policy of the Board of Agriculture in what comes within the range of its operations is exactly in the opposite direction. They bring the best into the country instead of sending the best out. Having regard to the fact that the various trades and professions are now open without let or hindrance to women, and are likely to be more so in the future, the fact that the women of the country are demanding and securing a larger measure of economic freedom, and that this House is favourably disposed to extending the line of political freedom, which will assist in adding to the security of our womenfolk in all departments of life, everything tends in the direction of women making the best of their opportunities in this country. If women have a desire to go oversea, lot them go, but in view of the race deterioration which the facts I have presented set forth, it is to our advantage to keep the best of our women here and not encourage them to go Give them absolute freedom to go if they like, but
do not go to the length the hon. Member opposite suggests.

Dr. W. MURRAY: I am not against this scheme of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in connection with the Colonial Office, but I think there is a danger of the Government over-emphasising the advantages of emigration. I do not think the best of our people should be encouraged to go even to Canada. The old proverb that charity begins at home is a little threadbare, but comes in handy sometimes, and it would be a pity if, in the general policy of the Government, the advantages of emigration should be overemphasised. It has been so in the Highlands. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of England alone, but there is a country called Scotland, and I think in the Colonies he will probably find a larger proportion of Scotsmen than of Englishmen. I have not the slightest intention of suggesting that a policy of this sort is wrong in itself, but I was afraid the interest which the hon. and gallant Gentle-man takes in it is apt to carry him away and get him to influence the Government to such an extent that he really forgets we are promised a new world and a country worth living in. We ought to make the conditions in this country so attractive as to keep the best men and women at home. There is certainly plenty of room and plenty of undeveloped land in the country yet on which you can place an enormous number of men and women. The hon. Gentleman referred to the period of reconstruction. That phrase is fallacious. The period of reconstruction will last to the millennium or the crack of doom, whichever comes first, so that I hope emigration is not to be regarded as a very big item in the general policy of the Government. As a matter of fact, the Highlands have been depopulated by the attractions of emigration. In some places in the Highlands the education rate is 20s. in the £. We educate the young men and women in order to make them good citizens in the Colonies, and it is Canada which should pay our education rate in the Highlands. I hope the hon. Gentleman will convey that to the proper quarter, so that the money will come back to replenish the deplenished coffers of the rating authorities in the Highlands. There is plenty of room in the Highlands, and even in Darkest England, for a great number more, so I hope this will not be over-emphasised. Still,
for those who are willing to go, the scheme is quite right, and, though it sounds a little mixed, I do not think it is. The right hon. Gentleman should make known to all persons concerned that there is such a scheme. Those who do not hear about it are placed in an unfair position. All should know about it, and there should be some system of casting lots or balloting for those who really want to go. That would be far better than a policy of limited advertisement of this kind. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Gideon Murray) suggested a most ingenious way of solving the problem of the franchise. He suggested that those women who wanted the vote should be sent to Canada as an alternative. I congratulate him on his most ingenious plan.

Mr. ATKEY: I understand that it is the intention of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to give wider publicity to the Government's scheme now that more shipping facilities are available. I wonder whether he would consider the advisability in connection with that form of publicity of sending appropriate communications to our Employment Exchanges. I have in my mind the fact that in my own city there are 2,000 ex-service men at present unemployed, and it seems to me that the managers of the Employment Exchanges there might be amongst the first to whom my hon. Friend sends his communications. The communications should not take the form of any sort of advertisement, but should be of the nature of a communication to the managers, so that those responsible managers could mention the scheme and could exercise some sort of discretion in placing the Government's scheme before any ex-service man, so that hopes would not be raised in the minds of many of these men that might never be fulfilled. I join with my hon. Friends who have congratulated the Under-Secretary on his most encouraging speech. As one who has travelled the Colonies I well remember the atmosphere which prevailed in the Colonies 20 years ago in regard to the particular office that my hon. Friend adorns. I can assure him that the view that was taken of the Colonial Office by our overseas brethren in those days was very different from that which prevails at the present time. I am quite sure that
if his speech, to which we have listened with intense interest to-night, could be communicated to—I hope it will—and read in our overseas Colonics, it would add one more to those bonds of sentiment which have been so wonderfully strengthened by the Great War, and which tend to make the Empire all that those of us who love it desire to see.

Mr. MACMASTER: I had not the pleasure of hearing the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The subject is one of first importance, and there is a good deal to be said in favour of caution in regard to emigration. I do not say that there should be a system of selection, but people should not be encouraged to emigrate unless they have unquestioned disposition to go, or unless it is in the national interest that they should go. I understand that in connection with various Labour Exchanges—I had a letter to-day on the subject—there are people who might get work, but who do not take work, and who are living on doles. They look forward to being sustained in that way for the coming winter That is a most undesirable situation. If these people cannot find employment, or employment cannot be found for them, it is probably the best thing for them to emigrate to one of our great Dominions or Colonies.

Sir F. YOUNG: People who will not work?

Mr. MACMASTER: My hon. Friend is of Colonial origin as I am, and he knows that in a very short time people who go to the Dominions and the Colonies find that loafing at street corners does not pay. My experience in Canada is that a man-has to work. He is bound to find work unless he is an invalid. Otherwise there is no place for him in the country. He must not be an idler about the streets of the towns or villages. If the job that he finds is not satisfactory to him and if he has any spirit he will work up to a very good position at a later stage. If people have the desire to emigrate, if they have the emigration spirit, let them go, and help them to go. A species of selection might deprive us of our best citizens, and it is not desirable that all our best should go. People who are content in this country had better stay here. There are people who are not content, people who have the roving spirit and wish to go abroad. Let these people go, and they will meet with nothing but fair
play in our great Dominions and Colonies overseas.
There is another point which requires attention. Nothing impresses an emigrant, whether he is a man or woman, more than a poor reception on arrival in the new country. To be received coldly or indifferently, or to be unduly canvassed to go to this place or that place, or to be told perhaps to go a thousand miles for employment when they land, has a very bad effect upon the emigrants and makes them give a bad report in writing home, and that is calculated to stop emigration. I know that many people have been discouraged from going: abroad for that reason. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend (Colonel Amery) who wishes to do the best for this country and for our Dominions and Colonies, to see that the link of communication is well kept up and that the necessary steps are taken to provide that the emigrant who leaves this country shall be well received and well looked after on reaching one of our Colonies or Dominions. It would be all the better if some provision was made for the emigrant getting into some definite occupation at once and not kept hanging about the country, possibly subject to solicitations to go to one place or another. One hon. Member spoke of a young man going to the Colonies and finding himself a billiard marker. That is perfectly possible. I do not know anything about the qualifications of the young man, but it is obvious that there are many people who go out who are not very keen on taking up any situation, but who see what they can get.
Those who are failures at home cannot expect to be successes in a new country. They have difficulty in adjusting themselves to the conditions of the new-country. But it is certain that no well-disposed man who has gone to any one of our great Dominions with the determination to work his way there, and who has steadily pursued that purpose, does not in the end make good. I know many Scotch men in Canada who not only made good but became exceedingly prosperous. I have asked some of these men, Would you not like to go back to the old country again? The answer I got invariably was that most of their old friends had died and they would be mere strangers in their own country, and that the children were so fond of the new country that they could not be persuaded to go to any other.
In the case of immigrants to a country such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland or South Africa, the love of the country in the children of the immigrants is so strong that they prefer the country of their birth and upbringing to any other, and become thoroughly devoted to that country. And those who emigrated, thinking they were going to a land whore they would be strangers in the end find themselves quite as much at home in the new land as they did in the old.
On the whole, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is our duty to build up every portion of the Empire and strengthen the Empire in every direction. If we look abroad at Australia with its five or six million people, Canada with between eight and nine million people, and the other great Dominions proportionately, we see in the course of the next generation each one of those countries becoming populous, well knitted together by railways, new, fresh, strong, vigorous nations. They are our own kith and kin, our own blood. We must take pride in building them up and seeing that prosperity attend them and that the link which binds them to the old land, of the value of which they themselves are excellent proof, is preserved and strengthened. We may look forward to the new generation and be able to say that we have done our duty here to-day, as those who wont before us, and the Dominions have also done theirs, in strengthening the fabric of the British Empire. And I am convinced that there is no force to-day in the world that is so ready to preserve civilisation, honest and straightforward dealings and the general prosperity of the world as the people of our own Empire, and the more you strengthen it the better for them and for us, the better for the world and for civilisation.

Sir F. YOUNG: I understand that the scheme outlined by the hon. Gentleman is one for the regulation rather than the encouragement of migation. I join with others in being delighted with the enthusiasm of the speech. Not that I read into it any indication that he is going to pour out hundreds of thousands of people from this country into the Dominions, but that he and those under him are going to take every possible means of directing the stream of emigration in the only direction which we should desire—that is, the direction of the
British Empire. The Central Executive Committee will be closely in touch with the representatives of different parts overseas, and they will find at times that there will be a considerable demand for immigrants, and that at other times the opposite conditions will prevail. Speaking as one who has had considerable experience, I can say that the Dominions are not anxious to be flooded at all. They are anxious steadily to increase their population as the extra numbers can be absorbed, but they have ample provision in their immigration schemes to check an undue flow of people from this country.
We are bound to face the fact that the selection of those who want to go abroad as emigrants must be based on the selection of the fit, of a class of people whom we should like to keep in this country. If we want to preserve an effective link between the administration in this country and the Empire outside it will not do for the administration here to use emigration as a means of getting abroad people who are failures in this country. That will condemn the system and create antagonism between the various parts of the Empire. If these people can get into the Dominions on their own account, or by some other help, let them do so. I quite agree that some of them will make good in the now conditions, but no scheme, as between the Central Government and the Dominions, will prosper if those in the Dominions get the feeling that there is an attempt to send out those who are looked upon as unfit in this country. It is easier to get men to emigrate than to receive them as immigrants. The reception of immigrants in new countries is a difficult matter.
I have hold the position of Minister of Immigration for some years in one of the Australian States and I know the excessive care that we had to take to justify it, and ourselves as being responsible for the men whom we had invited to come from the mother country. It is a matter that can only go slowly, particularly as regards those who have reached a certain age in life. The field for the employment of women in new countries is very limited. Though it is said that there is a surplus of men, the surplus is very slight. In the Dominions and in the new country the employment of women in many directions in the primary production
of wealth is not excessive, and there is no great field for the employment of surplus women. In my experience, so far as women immigrants are concerned, the only class for which there is any great clamour is domestic servants, who are the one class of which there is a great shortage in this country. In my opinion the finest field for emigration is among the young boys of between 15 and 20. If we can ensure a steady stream of these boys to the Dominions they will be going out at a very adaptable age when they have no responsibility, and they can fit into the newer conditions of the country much better than men who are encumbered in any way. By a very careful selection and by proper arrangements between the Executive hero and the different Dominions, so that the greatest possible care can be given to the young emigrants, I feel confident that that form of emigration will prove to be the most effective and the most continuous.

Mr. SWAN: Nothing will astound the nation more than the proposition that for our sons and daughters, the best of our blood, there is no room to be found in our own country. We were promised that it was to be a new world for them after the War; now we are informed that there is no room for them and that they must find work in other lands. It seems rather strange that a Government which made such promises to the community in 1918 should advertise its own inability to absorb the man power of the nation. It justifies the agitation going on outside and the whole propaganda which declares that the more the workers produce the sooner will they find themselves out of work; and that is the case in spite of all the lectures that we of the Labour party have been getting and in spite of all the declarations that what this country wants is more production in order that the cost of living might be reduced. The nation cannot absorb its man-power. Men cannot get the chance to work upon their native land, and yet we have much of the country absolutely undeveloped, silent as from the days of Adam; the hills laden with wealth, iron ore and coal and all the essential minerals. A year ago, when dealing with the problem of transport, we were told that if only we had the manpower at our disposal we could open up England, lay light railways up to the hills and get on with our schemes of reconstruction; that we could harness water
power by damming the waterways, establish dynamos and lay transmission lines to light our villages, and use the power as a means of effecting economy in coal. Now this cannot be done, and land must lie dormant for want of labour. We are told there is no use for our sons and daughters and that we must find facilities for them to go to Canada or Australia. Next we shall be told that we are flooding the labour market of other countries. There is a demand today for over a million houses in this country. A week ago we were told we could not get on with these houses because there was not man-power. Is it not an admission on the part of the Government of inability to absorb the nation's man-power? Is it not also an admission of the inability of private ownership to work for the welfare of the community, and does it not emphasise the importance of the demands for nationalisation, so that we may distribute labour? If necessary we must reduce the hours of labour until the whole of the man-power and of the woman-power is utilised. Then there will be no reason to send our sons and our daughters out of the country, and the money we are asked to spend on emigration we can use to solve some of our social problems.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I can only thank the Committee for the very kind and helpful reception they have given to this Vote. There is one criticism to which I must plead guilty, and that is that I am enthusiastic about this subject. I should like to say, however, that my enthusiasm is not the enthusiasm of one who wants to hurry and hustle people out of the country. My enthusiasm is for proper regulation, for proper care and advice being given to people who are intending to leave the country in any case, so that they may leave under the most favourable conditions. I listened with the greatest interest to the very informing and useful speech of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Briant), who, speaking from actual experience, stated what are some of the conditions of this problem. One of the reasons why we were not too anxious to proclaim our offer broadcast was that we knew that in every one of the Dominions there were problems of reconstruction to be faced, and that it was useless to send ex-service men to the Dominions when the soldiers of those Dominions were still
looking for employment. In so far as people have gone out prematurely I agree that it is unfortunate. Our whole interest has been to work in the very closest touch with the Dominions and not to send a single man abroad unless he is actually wanted and is sure of employment. I think it very probable that the cases to which the hon. Member referred went out under some private system and not under the very carefully considered system which we have recently inaugurated. Certainly I agree that we do not want people to be tempted overseas by exaggerated accounts of what the Dominions have to offer. A very considerable part of the Supplementary Estimate for which I have to ask is in respect of our fully informative publications, which are to be had at every Employment Exchange. Our interviewers, who personally see every person who calls at the offices, are men and women of personal experience, who know all about the conditions overseas, and who are there, not only to encourage people, but also to discourage those who have been induced by exaggerated accounts to think that they will find an Eldorado.
I recognise the very helpful criticism which has been made by hon. Members. I can assure my hon. Friends that we are as anxious as they are to secure that men and women who insist on going abroad should know the conditions before they go. I am afraid the hon. Member fur Barnard Castles (Mr. Swan) entirely misunderstood the situation. Our purpose is not to send people away, and least of all because we have not done our duty to find them employment here. Our purpose is to make them acquainted with the conditions if they do go. We hope that they will stay under the old Flag, and we make every arrangement so that, if they go, they may get the best possible chance at the other end. Reference was made to the voluntary society of women in connection with overseas settlement for the purpose of assisting and giving advice. We take great care that the organisation of overseas settlement is as efficient as possible and that the money which Parliament grants is well spent. The actual chairman of the committee is an officer in whom the Overseas Settlement Committee who have nominated them have the completest confidence. While I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Western Isles
(Dr. Murray) that there have been cases of the kind he referred to in the Highlands, I do disagree very strongly with one argument put forward by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). He seems to think that if we allow people to go away that it will be the good stock who will go and that those who remain will form a C 3 population. A great percentage of the people who were declared to be medically unfit for military service were of poor physique, not because of indifferent stock, but because of the conditions of space and light and air and housing under which they lived. If we deal with those problems adequately in this country, I am quite sure we need never fear that our people are going to degenerate. The great mass of the people are good stock, and if they get reasonable conditions of living and housing in the future, then they will be perfectly sound. I do not think, therefore, that we need in the least fear, because some people who cannot do so well here leave for other countries where they may do better, that we will not maintain the vigour of the old British stock in this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Special Services arising out of the War.

9.0 P.M.

Colonel NEWMAN: I would like to ask the Minister in charge a few questions with regard to Item I., dealing with the British Dyes, Limited, and British Dye Stuffs Corporation, Limited. I take it that this Vote is something similar to the financial transaction entered into by the Government the other day with regard to the Cellulose Company. The original scheme as to dyes was practically a war measure. In July, 1918, there was an animated Debate on the aid which the Government proposed to give to two big firms. In that Debate the then President of the Board of Trade, now Lord Ashfield, stated emphatically that this was a war industry and that the War might last a very long time. Fortunately, it concluded a few months afterwards. Now that we
are under peace conditions the average taxpayer wants to know something about this investment. Turning to the Estimates we see that this investment in British Dyes, Limited, and the British Dye Stuffs Corporation, Limited, amounts to £1,369,575, and then there are Appropriations in Aid, totalling £1,189,665. In that Debate in July, 1918, Lord Ashfield said that assistance was going to be given to the amount of £600,000, which is included in the total advance. If I were a member of the ordinary investing public I would turn at once to the Stock Exchange Year Book and look up British Dyes, Limited, There I would learn that this company was registered first under another name in March, 1915, and was reorganised in 1918 and the name changed, I would notice also this rather curious fact, that British Dyes, Limited, took over the very big business of Levinstein's, of which Lord Armaghdale, whom we knew here as Sir John Lonsdale, was chairman, and Mr. Levinstein was managing director with certain other gentlemen. We should notice with some surprise that not one of the directors of Levinstein, Ltd., appears on the Board of British Dyes, Ltd. We should find that the British Government bought out Levinstein on terms which certainly appear favourable to Levinstein, and we should want to know exactly how we stood in regard to this amalgamation. We should find in this Stock Exchange Year Book this rather sinister remark:
The users of the dyes who were shareholders ill the company will have priority in the available supplies of the company.
We should go on to find out that the capital authorised is £2,000,000, in shares of £1, of which £968,1574 have been subscribed. We should also find that the accounts for 1916–17 and 1917–18 have never been issued, pending a settlement with the Revenue Authorities in regard to the duties payable by the company, but a dividend of fifty per cent. has been paid to somebody. There is one rather curious statement in the Civil Service Estimates for 1918–19, appropriation account, Class 2, Vote 8, Vote on Account, which came before the House on the 10th of February of this year. This item appears: "Assistance to the dye industry, £1,000,000." Then apparently the Government did not want that money, because their scheme was not forward enough, and so the £1,000,000 was returned. I want to know
if that £1,000,000 appears in this sum of £1,703,621, and why, if it was not wanted a short while ago, it is wanted now.
I can imagine that the Board of Trade made a good bargain for the British tax-payer, but I want to be assured of it. Certainly their deal in connection with the British Cellulose Company has been called in question, and that company and this have certain superficial resemblances. I admit that British Dyes, Ltd., is an old institution and that this particular idea of fostering the British dye industry started in 1915 when the then President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman), at any rate a stern Free Trader, and against prohibiting the introduction of any manufactured goods from abroad, willingly assented to this scheme of setting up the British dye industry. The Government of that day, or at any rate some time before 1918, passed a resolution to the effect that no dyes should be brought into this country for ten years, and I should like to know if any other concern except British Dyes, Limited, has a chance of starting work in this country. I think that is a question which ought to be answered. We all agree that we must have the dye industry established here, but we want to get it done under the fairest conditions possible. We want to give every firm that wishes to start a dye industry here an opportunity of doing so, and we do not want to have a monopoly in connection with this great industry. We also want to know on what terms the Government have advanced this money to British Dyes, Limited. Originally, of course, as in the case of the Cellulose Company, this money was in the nature of debentures, bearing only four per cent. interest, but now it is in preference and ordinary shares. Speaking as an ordinary British taxpayer, I want to know the details of the deal, what security and what interest we shall have for our money, and what prospect this industry has of succeeding under Government supervision.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised this question of the British Dye Stuffs Corporation, because I can assure the Government that there is a great feeling of anxiety throughout this trade about the finance of this company. I am not going to go into it very largely or to make any accusations, because I have not full and accurate information, but I am
certain that the public will not be satisfied until something in the nature of a full public inquiry is made into the whole of this question. It was said by the last speaker, or it was implied, that the Government which started British Dyes, Limited, were responsible for what is going on at the present time, but a great change has taken place since then, and after Mr. Runciman left the Board of Trade that change took place. Until recently, it was a monopoly, in the full sense of the word, and it was a monopoly which was created largely by the fact that m this industry a system of protection was sot up. I am glad to think that that system of protection has been knocked on the head for the moment. We have not to thank the Government for that, however, but we have to thank the Courts, and if it were not for the Courts we would have had a complete monopoly, and the public would have been at its mercy to be victimised as the monopoly thought fit. I should like to know what reason the Government had for assenting, for instance, to the raising of the limitation of the maximum profits that could be made from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. Under the terms upon which the Government advanced the money to British Dyes, Ltd., they were not to receive more than 6 per cent., but apparently in order to get the new scheme through it was necessary to raise that limit to 8 per cent. I should like to know exactly whether it was considered necessary to do that, and what good it was expected to get from raising the profits in that way.
What we want in this industry is efficient public control. The Government has put a large amount of money in the industry, and has got almost a monopoly, and, seeing that that is the case, the Government ought to have much more efficient control of the industry than it has, and if it has not that control this particular industry is bound to be worked in the interests of the men who have the immediate control of it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Newman) referred to that, and I think it is an aspect of the question which deserves the most careful examination by the Government. I am sure the Government will realise that it is necessary to go into this question much more deeply than was done before. A great deal would have been said about this question when the money
was first invested in British Dyes, and later when the British Dyes Corporation was formed, if it had not been that a War was on and the people did not want a dye scandal in the middle of the War; therefore a great number of people who might have spoken out on that occasion did not do so simply because there was a War on. I hope, however, the Government will see that if there is going to be an enquiry, and if they are going to give the whole facts, it would come very much better from them if it comes voluntarily and without any pressure.
Another question is that referred to in Item C (s) and (t) We have there two headings, one a Vote of £18,000 for Clearing Office (Enemy Debts) and another of £6,000 for the Reparation Claims Department, I should like to know exactly to what that refers. Does it refer to private claims? I raise this question because I doubt the wisdom of going into many of these questions at all. It is quite obvious we are not going to get from Germany nearly as much money by way of indemnity as we expected, and it seems to me that it is only a waste of money if we are going to investigate a large number of claims which we know perfectly well will never be paid.

Mr. MYERS: When the British Dye Company was inaugurated it absorbed an old-established undertaking, and the public were led to believe that that industry was absorbed for the purpose of providing this country with dye-wares, such as are required in order to enable us to be independent of other sources of supply. Shortly after the transaction was effected, new buildings were erected, and I believe new buildings are in course of erection now. In any case large and extensive buildings have been erected, and the whole countryside in the Huddersfield area has been covered with building and chimney stacks, and to an outside observer it would appear that the place is exceedingly well equipped for turning out the products which it was set up to produce. My hon. Friend behind me spoke about it being a monopoly. Is it true that in the neighbourhood of the British Dyes, Ltd., there is at present in course of erection, almost completed, another concern, equally extensive in area and building, carrying on under a name similar to the original one which was absorbed by the
Government and engaged in a similar line of business? If that is so, it completely disposes of the statement that British Dyes, Ltd., have a monopoly. Also, we understand that about a month ago a deputation of half a dozen men left this country, if not at the request of the Board of Trade certainly with its knowledge and approval, to go to Germany entrusted with the responsibility of expending up to £2,000,000 on German dyes. That report appeared in the public Press, and in the Press to-day there is an intimation of large quantities of dyes coming from Holland. If these are facts, free trade in dyes at least is in operation. There is another aspect of this question. Is it true that some time back the products of British Dyes had to be boomed very extensively in order to persuade people in the textile trade to purchase the commodities of the British Dyes? I would like also to know if at the present time the products of the British Dyes are finding a ready sale in the home market, and if the people of the country who require these products are extending their patronage to the British Dyes, Ltd., and, having regard to all circumstances of the case, if it has been found satisfactory from these points of view to the Department concerned.

Major BARNES: This Vote opens up a phase of a fairly big question, but a phase which I think has never been debated in this House before. The question, of course, is a question of giving a State Aid to private enterprise. With regard to the dyeing industry, that matter has been well discussed in this House. I think during the past three or four years on more than one occasion the House has sanctioned assistance to the dyeing industry out of State Funds. I suppose there will be a general agreement that there was good reason for doing so. As far as I have been able to make out, the best reason is not because it was formerly in German hands or carried on very largely in other countries, but because there is some close relationship between the dyeing industry and the manufacture of explosives, and also of the gases which now form such a large feature in modern warfare. One was told that almost at the outbreak of War the large dye-producing plants in Germany were taken over to make explosives and poison gases, and we were placed at a great disadvantage for that reason. I think that was the
principal reason—although it was not the one most prominently put forward—why not only this Government but the Government that preceded it saw fit to give very considerable help to this industry. There are a great many Members here who believe in private enterprise, and not so many who believe in State enterprise; but whatever our opinion I think there would be common agreement on this, that where the State does come in and help private enterprise, that help should be given impartially, that there should be no special selection of particular firms, but that the industry should be helped all round. I think there would be also a general agreement that as long as the State is a partner in any private enterprise there should be a limitation of the profits there.
I propose to examine very briefly the action of the Government in making this transaction with the British Dye Stuffs Corporation, because I think in making this transaction they infringe both these principles. There is a good deal of interest in this particular transaction, because it has been followed quite recently by another transaction, referred to by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke before, in which the Government has taken up share capital in the British Cellulose Company. That has followed on the precedent which they established when taking share capital in the British Dye Stuffs Corporation. One thing has led to another, and it is interesting to note that some directors of the British Cellulose Company are also directors of the British Dye Stuffs Corporation. What the House is faced with is this: If it agrees to this Vote, what it is consenting to is not only that the State shall help a certain industry, not only that it shall give that industry a loan or grant, but that it shall actually take up share capital in particular businesses. It seems to me that is going to carry us very far, and I shall be surprised to learn if there is not very considerable opposition in this House to the adoption of that as a general policy by the Government.
What have been the facts in connection with the development of the dye industry? In 1914, very shortly after the beginning of the War, the Government made a loan of £200,000 to a firm in Huddersfield—Read, Holliday and Company. In 1915, British Dyes, Limited, was formed for
the purpose of taking over the business of Read, Holliday and Company, and the House then sanctioned an arrangement by which to British Dyes, Limited, was advanced a sum which might not exceed in all £1,500,000. To this was added the loan to Read, Holliday and Company, making a total of £1,700,000, but the terms laid down were that this money was to be advanced pound for every pound raised. The Government put down £1,000,000, and the British Dyes, Limited raised £1,000,000. After that the Government was prepared to put down £1 for every £4 raised by British Dyes, and the money advanced by the Government was to be secured by debenture. That was discussed in this House, and adopted. The position with which we are faced on this Vote to-night is this, that there has been a company started—the British Dye Stuffs Corporation, Ltd.—who have secured the shares in British Dyes, Ltd., and also a firm called Levinstein, Ltd., and the Government in the first place consented to transfer their interest in British Dyes to the Corporation on the same terms. The now company was to get a loan on debenture of £1,500,000, on the same terms as the British Dyes, Ltd., had, and that arrangement was put through, and an agreement was entered into by which it was to be enforced. That agreement was made on the 16th May of last year, and on the 26th May, 10 days later, the British Dye Stuffs Corporation was incorporated. On the 16th June, a month later, the British Dye Stuffs Corporation ratified the agreement with the Board of Trade by which they were to get this loan of £1,700,000 on a debenture. Then something appeared to have happened. So far as I am able to ascertain the facts, the British Dye Stuffs Corporation found that they were not able to raise the capital that they wanted in the source from which they expected to get it. They came back to the Government and said, "We cannot raise this capital, because you have got this debenture. What we want you to do is to give up this debenture, and take the money in shares." Apparently this was agreed to. The British Dye Stuffs Corporation then increased its capital by £4,000,000 in order to provide part of the shares which the Government was to take up. On the 17th July, the Board of Trade took up these shaves, and the very next day the British Dye Stuffs Corporation
issued a prospectus which stated that the Government had invested £1,700,000 in the shares of this Company.
Those are the facts. The House knew nothing of it, and did not sanction it, but what the State had sanctioned was a loan to this particular company on a debenture. It had the authority of the House to put £1,700,000 into this particular company, as a loan on a debenture, and that was quite consistent with the policy which the House had adopted towards the dye industry as a whole, because in addition to this money put in this special company, the House had sanctioned a further loan of £2,000,000 to the whole dye industry. Any firm in this country engaged in the dye industry might come and ask for a grant from this loan. When this general loan was going through the House, particular enquiries were addressed to the Minister in charge then, the President of the Board of Trade, as to whether British Dyes, Limited, or this new amalgamated company was to have any special advantage at all over any other company in the dye industry, and, of course, if it had been said that it was to have that advantage, the scheme would not have been sanctioned, because I can never believe this House would have sanctioned any proposal which would have given a particular firm or industry an advantage over its competitors. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking on the 15th May, 1918, said:
It Was intended to amalgamate British Dyes and Messrs. Levinstein, Limited, It is not proposed that the new company shall have any monopoly or privileged position in respect of Government assistance which is to apply to all approved undertakings in the country alike.
A little later in the month, he said:
It is not proposed that the amalgamation of British Dyes, Limited, and Messrs. Levinstein, Limited, shall have any privileged position in respect of the new scheme of Government assistance to the dye-making industry, which will be given to all British undertakings able to make effective use of it.
In June of the same year the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle), replying to a question, said:
It is not proposed to give any financial assistance to British Dyes, Limited, and Levinstein, Limited, in connection with the proposed amalgamation, beyond that already given to British Dyes, and that the additional financial assistance which the Government
propose to give to the dye-making industry will not be confined to the companies named in any amalgamation which they may form.
That was a definite pledge that the assistance to be given to this company was not to be different from or better than the assistance given to any other company. At that time the only assistance was a loan secured on debentures. Now the Government is taking over pact of the capital, and I want to know what the exact policy is. Are they going to give the same assistance to our other dye makers? Are they going to give it in the form of taking share capital I It is not necessary to explain to so many business men the difference between assistance in a company in one form and in the other. In Huddersfield there is a large concern for manufacturing purposes and the company is there. Are the Government prepared to take share capital in that or in any other concern? If they are, I am sure there will be many applications that assistance should be granted on the same terms. I therefore ask the Government this question: Are they going to extend that principle of taking up share capital to other firms in the dye industry? As to this particular transaction, I turned up the quotations for those shares in Friday's "Times," and I saw that the £I shares were in one case 16s. 9d. and the other 15s. 9d., and on the Government investment of £1,700,000, that would mean a depreciation of £160,000. Taking all the circumstances into account that depreciation is thoroughly well justified.
In this amalgamation of the share capital of the two companies, £1,000,000 was represented by goodwill. Now what were the conditions under which that amalgamation took place? It depended upon the maintenance of the restriction of imports. It depends still upon that restriction of imports. That is part of the goodwill. No doubt it has the good will of the Government, but what other goodwill it has it is difficult to see. Then, again, there was no independent valuation. The two parties agreed between themselves what the value was. There was no independent valuation shown in the prospectus. The Articles of Association provides against any complaint being made against the absence of that' independent valuation. The Government are investing nearly £2,000,000 in this company, and there has been no independent valuation while there
is a depreciation in the shares. I want to know whether this policy is one which the Government proposes to extend, whether in fairness and justice the Government proposes to take up other share capital. If they do not, I think it can only lead to great injustice and inequity.

Mr. JESSON: I am very much interested in the principle of Government participation in commercial enterprise, and I hope that the Minister responsible will give all the information asked for. This is no new principle. Very many years ago the Government of the day acquired shares in the Suez Canal Company. At first that was looked upon as a risky experiment, but these shares were acquired by a wise statesman, and they turned out to be a very good investment. Their value now is about ten times what it was when they were acquired. These shares were acquired in the interests of this country generally, not only from a commercial point of view. If the Government are taking share as it is stated, that should also be in the country's interests. I do not want to go into the question of Tariff Reform or Free Trade, but before the war, for all practical purposes, the dye industry had become a German monopoly. When the War broke out we were practically at the mercy of the Germans so far as dyes and things connected with the industry were concerned. The Government had no alternative but to adopt some methods of getting these goods which had formerly been obtained by us from Germany. I think the Government could not have done other than they did in assisting this dye industry here. I am interested in this matter from another point of view. I want to see this industry established because it is going to find employment for British labour. If we can establish this industry it is going to add to the resources of the country. Last year I was interested in an exhibition held at the Central Hall over the way for industries, the majority of which had become German monopolies and which our own people are now endeavouring to establish. I think that the assistance the Government is giving there is Very good work. It is a right and proper policy. All this talk about Free Trade and Tariff Reform leaves me cold. I am interested in re-establishing as many industries as possible which were uprooted on account of Free Trade in the past.
The tendency of our industries is in the direction of monopolies. Soap is for all practical purposes a monopoly in the hands of one combine with about £100,000,000 of capital. The Government has got to adopt, sooner or later, some way of dealing with that and with other industries in a similar position. Will the Government nationalise that industry, or take some steps to control it in the interests of the consumer? I hope the Government will consider that in view of the large number of industries which are steadily tending in the direction of monopolies, and will tend further as the Whitley Industrial Councils increase in number. It will be a question of nationalisation or of some other form of control. Personally, I hope that the Government will follow the policy they are pursuing in this case. I do not want to see these industries nationalised, because experience has shown that the nationalisation of an industry is not for the benefit of the nation.

The CHAIRMAN: That is wide of the question coming under this Supplementary Estimate. We must only consider on this Supplementary Estimate the change which has taken place since the House previously decided to take a portion of the debentures or shares of this industry. There has been, I agree, a substantial change since the first money was voted by the House, but it is only the ox-tent of that change that we can discuss on this Supplementary Vote.

Mr. JESSON: I appreciate that, Mr. Whitley. I was led to say what I did by the fact that we were discussing the principle involved in the Government investing the taxpayers' money in commercial enterprises. That is the matter under discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: No, no That is the matter which was decided on the Main Estimate. We are not now discussing that broad principle. We are only discussing the changes which have arisen and which have led to this Supplementary Vote.

Mr. JESSON: Well, that is all I wish to say, except, in conclusion, this: that I very much approve of the principle of the Government doing what they have done in regard to this particular industry. I hope they will follow out the same principle in regard to other industries.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): Perhaps I had better deal first of all with two small points raised by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood). The questions related to the collection of debts "due to British subjects by Germans and, similarly, debts due to Germany by British subjects. I can assure him that the office is a most important one. There is a corresponding clearing house, or office, set up by the German Reparation Claims Committee to recover, if it is possible to do so, reparation for damage done to British subjects during their residence in alien countries. I am quite sure it is most essential that we should have a well-equipped department for these purposes. I come now to the subject which has occupied most of the attention of the Committee, British Dyes, Limited. I should like first of all very strongly to repudiate the expression which fell from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who spoke about the dye "scandal." The word should not be lightly bandied about without some proof of the statement made. Several hon. Members spoke as if there was some mystery about the arrangements with the British Dyes Corporation. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle gave a very complete and accurate history of the whole undertaking. He told the Committee that the prospectus of this company was issued last year, stating that the Government had taken these shares. Everybody knew it. If the House had been very anxious to have the matter discussed they could have had it discussed. There was no mystery about it. I trust that we shall not hear the word "scandal" used again without some little more substance in the way of proof of such a statement. There have been a good many questions put. First of all, this British Dyes is certainly not a monopoly. There are several dye-making firms in existence. It is also true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle said, that there are other firms getting assistance, and getting it, we think, on equally fair terms with British Dyes, and getting it in a way that seems to the Government the best in the each particular case or set of circumstances.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is that on this Vote?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, I was merely answering the question because it was
raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Barnes). He made a complaint that there was no limitation of profits under this arrangement.

Major BARNES: I did not go into that, although I intended to.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for being released from the necessity of answering that question. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member for Spen Valley raised it!"] I thought it was raised by somebody. The fact that the Government is a large shareholder is, I think, a very efficient guarantee that the profits are not likely to be allowed to be excessive. [HON. Members: "Why?"] Because the Government has to stand here, and can always be brought to account.

Mr. MYERS: I did not refer at all to any question of profits. But a question I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman is whether any Government financial assistance is being given to any of the firms that are springing up very extensively in close proximity to British Dyes, Ltd.?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question offhand, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will find out. But someone talked about the question of profits, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman next to the hon. Member accused him. As I said, the fact that the Government has shares gives the public a very good opportunity to find out what are the exact profits. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle said there had been—at least I understood him to say—no proper valuation when Levinsteins had been bought out by the British Dyes Corporation.

Major BARNES: I said there has been no independent valuation, but that British Dyes, Ltd., and Levinsteins had agreed together as to the valuation.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My information is quite to the opposite effect. I am informed that an independent accountant, in order to satisfy the Board of Trade, settled the price to be paid to Levinsteins. In regard to the general position of affairs it is as the hon. and gallant Gentleman described it. The original commitment of the Government was to Read, Holliday, and Company. Then
there was £1,600,000 debentures in British Dyes, making altogether £1,700,000 Government liability. When British Dyes took over Hollidays, of course, they took over the Government liability for the £200,000 as well. Then, when the British Dye Stuffs Corporation amalgamated with Levinsteins, the Government still had the same liability of £1,700,000, but it was divided into 850,000 preference shares and a similar number of ordinary shares. That is the history of the thing, and it has been very truthfully described by the hon. and gallant Member.
I will now endeavour to answer some of the questions asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman). He said that Levinsteins had no representative on the board of directors, but I think he must have been misinformed, because Dr. Levinstein himself is one of the joint managing directors. He also asked a question about the appropriations in aid. The appropriations in aid which are shown under G.G. on page 24 are the old debentures of the British Dye Stuffs Corporation, which were paid off when they were amalgamated. It also includes interest on the instalment paid in advance on the shares taken by the Government in the British Dye Stuffs Corporation. One other point was made by the hon. and gallant Member, namely, that this-was a War industry, and that, although this sort of action might be all very well in time of war, it was inappropriate now. He said it was necessary when the War was going on, but he did not say it would be equally necessary even after that. This has been the policy of four successive Governments, and perhaps the most impassioned speech in favour of it was made at an early stage by Mr. Robertson, who was then, I think, occupying the office which I now have the honour to occupy.

Captain W. BENN: That was in War time.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, but there might be another war time, although we hope there will not. The experience borne in upon everybody's mind at that time was that one of the greatest drawbacks we suffered from at the beginning of the War, and all through the War, was the fact that we had allowed Germany to monopolise the dye industry. It affected our clothes, our chemicals, our
explosives, and hundreds of other things, and everyone said then that, no matter what party we belonged to, we must never allow ourselves to be put in such a position again. The policy of trying to improve the British dye industry was taken up, and Government money was spent, and is being spent, on it. Improvements are being made. They are not yet by any means perfect, and it may be a good while before they are perfect, but I am certain that those who embarked on this policy, when we saw the mistake we had made, are not going to leave it off now until we are quite sure that we have perfected this industry, and put ourselves in a very different position from that in which we found ourselves at the beginning of the War. It is for that reason that this policy is being continued, and we are perfectly ready to answer any questions that may be raised about it. There is nothing mysterious about it. It may be right or it may be wrong, as a matter of investment, but there is no doubt about the policy, and it is really upon that that I think the House must decide.

Major BARNES: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask, is it proposed to go on taking share capital in all the other concerns?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like, before I answer that—in fact, I do not think I can answer it to-night—to look more closely into those matters. They do not arise on this Vote, and I have not looked into that point, but I shall be very glad, if the hon. and gallant Member will either write to me or put down a question, to give him an answer. We certainly intend to help, and have helped, one or two other companies, but in what particular way I am not quite certain. Our object has been to give them the help that seemed most useful and most likely to improve their position.

Captain BOWYER: I should like to say a word or two on the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts)—sub-head (s) of Item C on page 24; and I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade for what he said on that matter. I know that what I shall say will be in direct contradiction to what was said by an hon. Member opposite earlier in the Debate. These debts divide themselves roughly into debts from Germans, debts from Austrians, and
debts from Czecho-Slovakians, and it is on the question of the last that I should like to speak, because there the situation has materially altered from what it was when the War came to an end. Czechoslovakia and Austria, when the war started, were roughly part of the same Empire, and were against us; but now that Czocho-Slovakia is, and very rightly, held to be an Ally, and has fought gallantly with us, the question of the settlement of debts due from Czechoslovakia to British nationals is one of extraordinary difficulty. Only a couple of days ago the case was brought to my personal knowledge of a firm, in which I have not one penny interest, in this country, which is owed no less than seven million kroner by Czecho-Slovakians, some of whom are no doubt Austrian in origin, and were Austrian until they managed to prove themselves Czecho-Slovakians. Others, of course, are Czecho-Slovakians through and through. The difficulty is rendered all the greater by the impossibility, owing to the exchange, of bringing the money, if collected, to this country, and firms in this country who have a great export trade with these enemy countries and Czechoslovakia, are crippled for want of running capital, because they have so much money sunk in these debts, which, although they may be able to recover it in the near future, they will not be able to bring it to this country without great loss under the present rate of exchange. So far from the £18,000 which is shown here being excessive, I want to submit that the question of the payment and clearing of these debts is one which should come under the notice of the Board of Trade very largely in the future. When such firms ask what the Government can do to help them, they get the answer that the only help they can expect is advice, that they must by mutual arrangement solve their own problem, because they are dealing with Czecho-Slovakia, which is an Ally. That is all very well, but when you get, as I can vouch is the fact, one firm whose debts amount to seven million kroner, I say that the problem is urgent, and the export trade of this country is likely to be hit so hard that I think the Government should consider whether, by any means in their power, they can do something to help these firms who, both now and in the future, will be very seriously
affected by the shortage in running capital.

10.0 P.M.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I only rise to call attention to two or three points, but before I do so I want to make one remark on the question of the investment in British Dyes. I followed the Debate on this closely, and it seemed to me to prove that the Government could not perform its function as encourager of industry and at the same time make a profitable investment, because in the one case its interest is to make a profit and to do that it must discourage competition, and in the other case its duty is to encourage competition. That was clearly brought out in the speech made by the Member for Spen Valley, who asked whether the Government was aware that one of the firms originally bought out by the undertaking had already started new works close to those which they had sold. If the Government had taken the ordinary proper steps to protect their investment of this large sum of nearly £2,000,000, they surely would have entered into some agreement with the people they bought out that they should not re-start business within a reasonable distance of their original venture. I do not think this money can be looked upon as an investment at all, and the sooner it is written off as a loss the better. It would be more honest to tell the people it was a sum of money given for the purpose of establishing this industry in War time, and if they expect to get any return for it they are very much mistaken. Besides that, the whole character of the investment has changed. Originally it was a debenture investment, which gave the Government the right to take the whole of the proceeds in case the venture was unsuccessful. But it has now been changed, and the Government simply rank pari passu with all the other ordinary and preference shareholders, and are only entitled to their proportion of the sale of the pro-coeds in case of the winding-up of the company, instead of taking the whole lot as debenture holders.
But I really rose to draw attention to four items under the heading "C. Special Services Arising Out of the War," namely, (A) Coal Mines Department, (E) Exports Credit Department, (S) Clearing Off Enemy Debts, and (T) Re-paration Claims Department. It seems
to me that none of these charges should fall on the public. The first item is one of £75,000 for the advinistrative expenses of the Coal Mines Department. That, surely, is not a fair charge on the public. It might be fairly charged against the coal, or against the profits of the industry; it might be a fair charge on the price of the coal supplies; but it is certainly not fair to charge it against the general taxpayer. Then I come to the item of £18,000 for the collection of enemy debts. If I had debts I wanted collecting, I should pay the debt collector myself. I really do not see that the general taxpayer ought to be called upon to pay anything for collecting 7,000,000 kronen which is owed to an English firm. If they get their 7,000,000 kronen they should be very well satisfied to pay for the collection of it. It ought not to fall against the public. With regard to the Reparation Commission, ought the £6,000 there to fall against the public? As to the Coal Department, the £75,000 is only half the cost. It means that £150,000 has been charged to the public for the administration of the Department, and it is not well spent money.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct in his figures, but this expense will be paid back to the Treasury when the Coal Controller is in possession of the balance, which he expects to be at the end of this year. When the owners have been paid their profits and the miners their wages, the surplus will go to refunding the cost of coal control, which has only been advanced by the Treasury, so it is not a charge on the public.

Colonel WILLIAMS: That is all very well, but I believe the coalowners have told the Board of Trade that it is bound to fall on the public, and that there will not be sufficient assets in the pool to meet these expenses, and I am very much afraid if we vote this money it will be found that there is not sufficient money in the coal pool to bear this charge of £150,000. I would suggest first of all that the Government try to get it out of the pool before it is voted from the public funds. There is nearly £200,000 voted to-night and I do not think the taxpayer ought to be called upon to pay a single penny of it.

Sir R. ADKINS: With regard to using public money in regard to cases like this
of Czecho-Slovakia, surely that is on a different footing from the payment of an individual collector of debt. If English nationals have suffered during the War it is part of the duty of the Government to make arrangements with any country with which we have been at war to see that part of the final settlement includes machinery for facilitating our nationals getting their rights. The difficulty is that Czecho-Slovakians were at one time enemies and to-day are not enemies. I still think it is to be regretted that the Government have not gone a step further than they have and provided the same or equivalent machinery to that which was provided when dealing with Germany.
Another point we want to emphasise before passing from this Vote is the very great difference with regard to the Dye-stuffs Committee between debentures and shares. My hon. Friend who represents the Department, while he accepted the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood), after he had recited his agreement with the narrative did not in any way comment on this point. There are not a few Members of the House who thoroughly appreciate the need for helping the dye industry in view of warlike contingencies which may arise, but yet draw a very marked distinction between the line of getting money in the-form of debenture", which may bear a low or a high rate of interest, according as on grounds of high policy may be necessary, and the Government taking shares in the undertaking, with no priority of claim and subject to all the risks of the undertaking, and not knowing from year to year what interest, if any, is coming and being involved for more than would otherwise be-necessary in the details of the policy carried out by that firm. I desire, to make the protest along with other hon. Members, and to assure my hon. Friend that the change from debentures to shares has never been adequately defended and justified, and that it is a great pity that any doubtful methods should be used in regard to matters on which all of us are agreed, namely, that of trying experiments to meet great emergencies, but which may mean great risks in future.

Captain W. BENN: I beg to move that "Item I ["Investment in British Dyes,
Limited, and British Dye Stuffs Corporation, Limited, £1,369,575"] be reduced by the sum of £100."
I was glad to hear the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Member (Sir R. Adkins), and I hope that I shall have his support in the Lobby, I should like to put a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. In regard to the item referring to the Coal Mines Department, I am not quite sure whether I am right in my doubts. If I am wrong, perhaps he will tell me. I am not dealing with the question whether the public ought to bear this charge. My hon. and learned Friend who speaks on this subject with some authority, told us that it is proposed that the industry should bear the charge. I do not know, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will tell me. The Department is going to cost £150,000 a year. At any rate, there is £75,000 for six months, so that it is at the rate of £150,000 a year. I thought the hon. Gentleman said in Committee that the cost was to be £750,000. He said that for the whole financial year the charge would be £750,000. Perhaps I am wrong. The next question is in regard to the Export Credits Department. We are entitled to know a little more about the policy that will actuate the head and the staff of this Department. I saw a circular issued by the Board of Trade last year, in which they seemed to suggest that in this Department—which, I imagine, is the Department which provides credits for Eastern Europe, and for reconstruction in Eastern Europe—some attempt was to be made, not to supply what the people really want, but something which it was conceived by the Board of Trade it would" be good for this country to export. If that is so, it is a short-sighted policy, because, obviously, you ought to supply to these people what they can use, even if it be raw material, which some people imagine it is not good for this country to export. As regards Item "T," we are asked to vote £6,000. This is to be a Department to deal with claims for reparation in Germany. It is exciting hopes in the bosoms of persons who have claims which cannot possibly be satisfied. It is, also voting £6,000 of public money which is not required. In the first place, we have to pay about £6,000 for the administrative charges of the Department,
but before the Department can become operative, the Germans have to find first the money to repay the reconstruction loan which we understand from the newspapers is about to be issued with the authority of the Allies. After that, they have to find money to support the Armies of Occupation. After they have found that money, they have to find money for the reparation of Belgium, which has priority over reparation in regard to other nationals. Next, they have to find reparation for France, and not until these sums have been paid is there going to be any fund with which the Reparation Claims Department can possibly have to deal.
Is it not premature to vote £6,000 to set up a department whose hopes of securing payment of claims are so contingent and remote? The dyers are supported by the hon. Member for Middleton on the ground that we must control the dye industry in order to be ready for the next war. The Secretary to the Board of Trade told us that though we are at peace at the moment we might be at war again at some period.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I said I hope that we never should be at war.

Captain BENN: But we were to make preparations and the dye industry was to be ready for the next war. He also defended it passionately as a most effective piece of Tariff Reform. I did admire the singular fidelity to principle with which the hon. Gentleman supported Tariff Reform. It is a cruel thing for anyone to get up and defend the principles of Tariff Reform in the House of Commons at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] But what we are complaining of is not the principle but the way in which it is done. If you wish to subsidise an industry because you think it must be subsidised to be ready for the next war you are provoking the next war by getting ready. If you think it is necessary we agree, being a helpless minority, but we say that it should be done in the best way. We do not think that the distribution of largess to favoured dye manufacturers is the best way to go to work, or that if you are investing public money it is a wise thing to change debentures for shares, which already have diminished in value and may only have some very hypothetical
and contingent value. In order to bring the point to an issue I move this reduction.

Dr. MURRAY: Am I in order in speaking on the expenses of the School Administration Department?

The CHAIRMAN: Not until we dispose of this question.

Question put, "That Item I be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 164.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle)
Hayward, Major Evan
O'Grady, Captain James


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Billing, Noel Pemberton.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J.' M.
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Briant, Frank
Kenyon, Barnet
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Devlin, Joseph
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Donnelly, P.
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. G. Thorne and Mr. Hogge.




NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Atkey, A. R.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Austin, Sir Herbert
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Ferring, William George


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Gregory, Holman
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Baldwin, Stanley
Gretton, Colonel John
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Griggs, Sir Peter
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel.


Barnston, Major Harry
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Benn, Com. Ian H. (Greenwich)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rodger, A. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Haydey, Arthur
Royce, William, Stapleton


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hewart, Bt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Sexton, James


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hinds, John
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bruton, Sir James
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Stanler, Captain Sir Beville


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cairns, John
Jesson, C.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carr, W. Theodore
Johnon, L. S.
Sugden, W. H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Swan, J. E. C.


Casey, T. W.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, William Kennedy (Horpsey)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kellaway, Frederick George
Taylor, J.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Turton, E. R.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Waddington, R.


Courthope, Major George L.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Wallace, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Whitla, Sir William


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lloyd, George Butler
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lunn, William
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Eyres-Monseli, Commander B. M.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Macmaster, Donald
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier Walker, L.
Matthews, David
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Forrest, Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. (Aberdeen)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardiner, James
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur

Mr. HOGGE: May I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) voted in both Lobbies?

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member voted in error the first time, and accordingly, following Mr. Speaker's ruling, that is cancelled.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very much interested in Item G, which provides for temporary Vice-Consuls in Russia. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Sir H. Greenwood), who has already delivered two charming and delightfully fluent speeches, will be able to enlighten me. What is the policy with regard to Consular representatives in Russia?

The CHAIRMAN: This Supplementary Estimate is for temporary Vice-Consuls, and that point would be beyond the purport of this Estimate.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Temporary Vice-Consuls was all I meant. Who were those temporary Vice-Consuls, I do not mean persons, but what parts of Russia were they sent to? There was a very full and, I believe, efficient Consular service in Rusisa before and during the War up till the time of the second Russian revolution, when they left in spite of the fact that several neutral nations and also the Americans kept their Consuls on many months after we did. Might I ask if one of the temporary Vice-Consuls whom we are paying is a Consul at Odessa? We were told this afternoon that forty-thr e British subjects have remained in Odessa after the evacuation by our gallant Allies the White Russians. I would very much like to know if a Vice-Consul is remaining in Odessa and will look after their interests, because if not I think it is a very scandalous thing. These gentlemen stayed on their own account, obviously for very good reasons. I hope they will lay the foundation of a flourishing trade to be
opened up presently with South Russia, and I want to know if a Vice-Consul has remained to assist them in this very important task. If not, I propose to move the reduction of the Vote. At the same time, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me know whether the Vice-Consul at Archangel has remained there. We had a Vice-Consul there at any rate up till the time that the British forces evacuated. I do not know whether the Vice-Consul remained on, but I think it is very unfortunate if he did not. I should also like to be informed if one of these Vice-Consuls is at Novorosisk, and if when Novorosisk is evacuated he will remain to look after our interests. These temporary Vice-Consuls apparently have been sent to Russia to carry out their duties in the parts that are supposed to be freed from the horrors of Bolshevists. We know that there has been practically no trade at all carried on with those parts, that the organisation was so terrible, the transport so bad, and the risings were so frequent, that no trade could be carried out, and if these Vice-Consuls only went to these so-called liberated territories, they could have been of no use, and if they have not remained now, when there is a chance of doing some trade, I submit that we are being asked to spend £6,000 for which no good return can be shown.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: I would like to ask the representative of the Government whether he will make it clear that the money we are asked to vote is to pay Consular servants who are not in any sense representing British interests in the Bolshevist régime. So far as I understand the policy of the Government, it is not to recognise the Bolshevist régime and therefore I would like the hon. and gallant and learned Baronet (Sir H. Greenwood) to make it quite clear to the House exactly what the duties of the Consular service are for which we are asked to vote this money. I, for one, unlike the hon. and gallant Member who preceded me, am opposed to the British Government identifying themselves with, or officially recognising, the Bolshevist régime, and therefore I trust the representative of the Government will make that quite clear.

Mr. HOGGE: There is an important item in this Estimate about which I think we might have some explanation. Does
Item J, referring to the British Industries Fair, refer to the fair which has just closed and which has been held in the Crystal Palace; and, if so, is the explanation of the Appropriations in Aid—of £26,340—an indication of what has been received from those who have been exhibiting there? The fair at the Palace is an attempt on the part of the British Government to substitute something in this country for a similar undertaking abroad, and I am certain the Committee will be glad to know some details in regard to the success of that undertaking.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: Might I ask one or two questions with regard to the temporary Vice-Consuls in Russia? Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us exactly what reports are sent back to us, the number of individuals replying, and, in particular, if they are British, or from what nation they are drawn? There is a further point which has interested me considerably. I notice in Section 3 j £20,000 for the British Industries Fair, and in 3 k £26,000 odd as receipts. Does this really mean that a Government Department has actually made a profit at last? If my interpretation of the figures be correct, the House might well be told how it was done, and the hon. Gentleman might give us some information which would be of some little guidance to some of the Departments which are so busy spending money at the present time.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) has asked me certain questions about the consular system of Russia. Russia, until quite recently, was largely under the control of Admiral Koltchak and General Denikin, and it was impossible to send Consuls there officially. Originally, there were four Vice-Consuls estimated for and passed by the Committee. This Supplementary Estimate provides for two more, making six temporary Vice-Consuls, and the expenditure has gone up from £4,000 to £10,350, because of the extra Vice-Consuls and the unexpectedly long time that they had to draw salaries, allowances, and so forth. When the original estimate was presented nearly a year ago, it was impossible to foresee the development of Russia historically. These Vice-Consuls are not permanent members of the Consular Service, but they were accredited to Vladivostok, Irkutsk, and
Murmansk during troubles and terrors at those places. Two have since resigned and the others will terminate their engagements as soon as their functions are exhausted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are those Vice-Consuls for whom we are asked to pay now at Irkutsk, Vladivostok, and Murmansk carrying on their duties?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As to the Vic-Consuls at Vladivostok and Irkutsk I think the gentlemen covered by the Supplementary Estimate are there, but I cannot speak as to the Vice-Consul at Murmansk. The plain fact is that in the rapid movements of men and troops, and the changing political control, it is exceedingly difficult for Vice-Consuls, or any kind of representatives of a civilised Government, to carry on the ordinary duties of the office. Many of them have gone for a long time without any pay, but all of them have upheld the best traditions of the British race, and wherever there has been a sweep, or an ebb and flow of the different forces of the Russian civil war, every person in distress has always collected under the ægis of the British Consul or British Vice-Consul, and, with one or two exceptions, has always been able to be protected by that officer. This Vote does not apply to Odessa or Archangel or Novorosisk, and therefore I am not able to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman in reference to those places.
So far as the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Tavistock (Lieut.-Commander C. Williams) is concerned, may I say that this Vote of the British Industries Fair does represent a profit? I am glad to say that, owing to the efficiency of the officers of my Overseas Department, all of whom are underpaid and badly paid, this British Industries Fair has been for the past six years, and this year more than ever, a very great success. I estimate myself that some £10,000,000 worth of orders have been taken by buyers without costing this country a shilling, and approximately equally good results have been obtained from the Fairs in Glasgow and Birmingham. I am glad to be able to say I am very proud of a Government Department which can run an undertaking at a profit. I am asking the Committee to give me a token Vote of £10 to enable me to extend the revenue
of the British Industries Fair in paying the outlay necessary for carrying on that Fair. The money is essential before the end of the fiscal year. The reason I am asking the Committee to give this is that a transfer was made to the Department of Overseas Trade of the administration of this Fair during the last year, and therefore it does not come upon the original estimate, but upon the Supple mentary Estimate. I hope the Committee will show its approval of a Department which is paying its way in this regard.

Mr. HOGGE: The Committee is glad to note that my hon. and gallant Friend's Department has made a profit, but what I do not understand is how these accounts can have been printed and circulated to the House of Commons on the 10th February, which is a month ago, and the Crystal Palace British Industries Fair, to which they refer, closed only on Saturday, and the sales and other industries in connection with the fair could only be made out inside the last month. How my hon. and gallant Friend manages with so much jubilance to tell us that they have got that amount of money seems to me to be rather curious. I would really like to know what he means when he says that £26,000 has been obtained by the Crystal Palace British Industries Fair. He also mentioned Glasgow and Birmingham. Are they closed yet? I am not sure whether or not they are still open. Were they closed on Saturday? The one in London only closed on Saturday and we have these papers circulated on the 10th February, prepared and printed a fortnight before. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the efficiency of his Department; how it was that, weeks before the time, he was able to get information as to the rosults of these industries fairs?
With regard to the temporary Vice-Consuls in Russia, he said there were six, but he only located three and said nothing about the others. We were told they were sent because Generals Denikin and Koltchak were in charge of that part of Russia, and therefore we were able to send Consuls. I never knew that we were associated in any sense with Generals Denikin and Koltchak. It is quite true that, surreptitiously, and without the consent of this House, £100,000,000 was sent to them, to supplement their armaments, but so far as we know we have never had
any agreement with them. I want to know what the Government has been doing. On what conditions were those officials sent out to places under the control of these two generals? Are they to be maintained there; No one grudges their salaries, but we want this information. Has their engagement terminated? Is it to be terminated? Or are they to be re-appointed?

Mr. BILLING: I should like to know why the hon. Member has refrained from answering a printed question which I put to him; whether this token Vote or any part of it is to be used directly or indirectly in the payment of officials who are now in the Bolshevik part of Russia. He endeavoured to ride off by telling us of the swings and the roundabouts, in order to divert our attention from it. It is a matter of infinitely more importance than the profit he imagines he has made from the exhibitions. It is most important to know whether we are sending or retaining representatives in that part of Russia now in the hands of the Bolshevists. The Committee is asked to vote £10. No one will consider they are controlling the National Exchequer if they vote that. But it is not so. This is a blind door for a blind policy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that no Government could foresee the trend of events in Russia. If he had said that the Government of which he had at present the pleasure to be a Member could not foresee the trend of events, the Committee would have believed him. A number of Members here did foresee the trend of events: therefore, though what the hon. and gallant Member has said may be a reason, it is not an excuse for the attitude he takes up to the Committee.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In respect to the Vice-Consuls at Vladivostok, they are now in that city, which is under Bolshevic control, mainly looking after the safety and property of British subjects. It is beyond the rules of order under this Vote to answer further the questions put. The question of the capacity of any Department to estimate the revenue of the British Industries Fairs at the time these Estimates were prepared, put by the Member for East Edinburgh, can be answered. This is the 6th year of the Fair in London, and all the spaces were let for a long time in advance. This Estimate, in my opinion, will be under
that based by efficient members of the Department of Overseas Trade on the actual and certain receipts before the Estimates were printed in the middle of last month.

Mr. HOGGE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is so confident they will exceed, why ask for £10?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will tell the hon. Member. Because the British Industries Fair was not in the original Estimate of the Department of Overseas Trade. It was in the Board of Trade Vote. My Department took over the Fair during the year. Under a Treasury rule, when a transfer like that take place, the new-Department controlling must have the consent of the House of Commons for a Supplementary Estimate before it gets the money. The fairs at Birmingham and Glasgow were quite independent of the Crystal Palace Fair. Both, I am glad to say, were run, with what assistance the Department of Overseas Trade could give them, entirely by the chambers of commerce and municipalities of each of these respected and progressive cities. My hon. Friend questioned me as to Consuls. I said there were three posts, with six Consuls and four Vice-Consuls at Vladivostok, one at Irkutsk, and one at Murmansk. The one at Murmansk and four of those at Vladivostok, have resigned, which leaves four. These four, and the Vice-Consuls, will continue their excellent work in the future, as they have done in the past, as long as it is in the public interest to continue their salaries and their engagements.

Question put, and agreed to.

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we might report Progress now? This is a very important Vote.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY, ETC.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir E. Sanders.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I have to report that the Committee invited to consider the Government proposal as to the Business of the House, consisting of Mr. Acland, Sir F. Banbury, Sir E. Dalziel, Colonel Gretton, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Hinds, and Colonel Wedgwood, made, and elected, Sir F. Banbury Chairman. The Committee makes the following recomnendations:

1. That the business of Supply have precedence over all other business beginning on Tuesday, 9th March, until the conclusion of business on Thursday, 25th March, excepting on Fridays. That any private business set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. be taken at 11 p.m.
2. That private Members who have already been successful in the ballot be given priority on Wednesdays after Easter.
3. That the Question should always be put separately on each Vote in Supply.
4. That the following Votes be given priority:—

Class 2, Vote 11.
Unclassified, Vote 20 (Bread Subsidy).
Class 5, Vote 2 (Colonial Services).
Class 7, Vote 3A (Ministry of Health).
Unclassified, Vote 8.4 (Ministry of Transport).
Unclassified, Vote 5 (Ministry of Shipping)
Unclassified, Vote 19 (Canals Compensation).

That time be allocated for the business of Supply in accordance with the following table:—

Day.
Table.
Time suggested for proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.


Tuesday, 9th March
Supplementary Estimates
—


Wednesday, 10th March
Supplementary Estimates
11 p.m.


Thursday, 11th March
Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Force Estimates). Votes A and Votes 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Air Force Estimates in Committee of Supply
11 p.m.


Monday, 15th March
Civil Services and Revenue Departments Vote on Account in Committee of Supply
—


Tuesday, 16th March
Report of the Civil Services and Revenue Departments Vote on Account
8.15 p.m.



Report of all outstanding Supplementary Estimates
—


Wednesday, 17th March
Report of all outstanding Supplementary Estimates
7.15 p.m.



Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates)
11 p.m.


Thursday, 18th March
Vote A and Vote I of the Navy Estimates in Committee of Supply. Proceedings necessary for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means and to dispose of Resolutions proposed in that Committee
11 p.m.


Monday, 22nd March
Motion, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair (on going into Committee of Supply on Army Estimates) and Vote A of the Army
11 p.m.


Tuesday, 23rd March
Report of outstanding Resolution. of Committee of Supply and of Resolutions of Committee of Ways and Means
11 p.m.


Wednesday, 24th March
Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading
11 p.m.


Thursday, 25th March
Consolidated Fund Bill, remaining stages
11 p.m.

I may add that these Resolutions were come to unanimously.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should like to thank the Committee for the services which they have rendered the House in carrying out the Parliamentary bargain made this afternoon. The House is much indebted to them for having made this arrangement, which I am sure will be satisfactory to all. There is, of course, no Motion to carry out the proposal of this Committee. The recommendation of the House as it was understood this afternoon, and as I am sure the House was pleased to recognise was that by this method we avoid having the guillotine at all. The only Motions put down by the Government will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow, and the object will be to carry out the necessary allocation of private Members' time which is referred to in this Report, and at the same time
to make the allotment to those Members who had got the ballot on private Members' days. There will also be put down a Motion carrying out the suggestion which was made by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to Private Bill business at 11 o'clock.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I should like, on behalf of Members on this side of the House, to join in an expression of our indebtedness to those of our colleagues who have so expeditiously, so efficiently, and, as I hope and believe with such unanimity' of agreement with the general body of the House, arrived at the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman has detailed to us. So far as we are concerned, the understanding will be carried out in the letter and in the spirit.

Commander BELLAIRS: I agree with the compliments which have been paid to
the Committee, but I would like to point out what the nett result will be. On the Supplementary Estimates we have already had three days' discussion over an amount of £28,000,000. "We are going to have several more days' discussion, and on the main Estimates, the policy Votes, we shall be vigorously cut down in regard to our discussions. I hope therefore the position will be considered that on policy Votes, Army, Navy and Air, we may wish to discuss policy and carry on the discussion to other Votes at a later stage so that the House will not be deprived of what is the main source of expenditure, not such smaller
sums as the £28,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates, but the very much larger sums which are affected by the whole Army, Air and Navy Estimates.

Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have an opportunity on the Consolidated Fund Bill and Vote on Account to raise every possible question. As it stands, I think it will work out that every question in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is interested will have an opportunity of discussion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'clock.